That's the point, 3 campaigns, to flesh them out to the same level as the single campaign from the first game, would take a loooooot of time and effort.
They are working on a 4th campaign though. I personally really enjoyed the cutscenes and the story, though I do agree, it could be fleshed out more. It also kinda depends on how fast you go through everything.
I use the doom scythes in larger campaign battles to recon enemy units basically and they function well in that regard. And when an enemy ship splits off from a larger group, it gets a whole heap of Doom Scythes on its ass to keep hurting it for a long period of time and cripple that ship while I focus on the rest.
I don't really see an issue there.
Also, I found I've got more resources in the Imperial campaign so far compared to the Necron campaign, though I also haven't had any mission or fight where I really lost any ships (One so far) and I'm on turn 50, I've had groups of ships worth around 1000 points going up against tyranids or chaos up to 1500 points and still came out relatively intact.
So I think your experience just simply is quite different form mine, that's not to say it's invalid, but with different tactics and different progression, your whole experience might be quite different from how it is no.
I do completely agree on the flagship thing, and just, exchanging ships between fleets and admirals between fleets in general, that would be a big quality improvement.
@shaftoe I just want to respond to problem 6!
I don't have this issue at all, though reading some other responses, it seems you guys are having specific issues.
I mean, I often get my battleplans taken back by an enemy boarding my ship when it has the battleplan, but otherwise, I do get the battleplan everytime.
Basically, though Necrons have slow movement (Starting at 2 systems per turn, up to 3), unlike the Imperials, that have to move through sectors to go to others in multiple turns, Necrons can more easily do this because every sector has one of these gates.
@romeo I can understand your issues and sympathize with them. I'm one of those players who didn't even try the first game before, so I wasn't around for those issues. Though I know plenty of people that still enjoy the first game.
So I'm coming in here with a clean brush, though there's been mixed feelings about the first game and complaints and also compliments, I'm just focused on my experience with this game so far, and it has been mostly positive. There are hiccups, there are issues, but in general, I've had a really fun time playing it, and that's what I go for, having fun while playing a game!
I'm already enjoying myself, and there are promises of more, maybe those promises won't pan out, but regardless of that fact, I'm having a good time, so for me, it's already a win.
@zucadragon all i know is i put 10 hrs in the imp campaign and cant play it anymore because i have an ork cut scene that cant be ignored or waited out. seems pretty botched to me this is dont release a game that hasnt been played through hundreds of times before launch 101. A very basic beta would have given them the info they needed to deal with 90 percent of the bugs in that list but they refused and now here we are praising them for fixing problems that should have never been. I think we need to step back and really look at the game in its entirety at this point. MP is a dumpster fire in balance, the whole boarding system is broken, The most lackluster faction is a third of the SP content, nids are not even close to swarmy, there is literally a guard function in the game that no one can say what it actually does, tool tips on points of interest are either not worded correctly or not working at all, and every aspect of the game currently has at least 1 game breaking bug. I think this give them to benefit of the doubt argument went out the window when they released the game in this condition.
I don't agree, there's few players on the forums talking about game breaking bugs like the one you're experiencing. They had an alpha team play through the campaign before release, and many of those have commented on how great it has been in various threads.
Not every problem can be found right away, one player I read can hardly start the game without having major issues, but most players are having a good time, with small little gripes and problems here and there.
MP is not a dumpster fire, look on youtube, at high ranking players talking about how some just don't have the experience yet to really know what they're doing and how to play the game right. A lot of people come in, expecting one thing, and getting another experience from what they expected, but then don't put in the time and effort to learn the system, the pros and cons. It's like with Tyranids ever so often being claimed to be over powered, but then high level players show that a well balanced fleet from pretty much any other race show that they aren't that hard to beat. It just takes experience.
The boarding system isn't right the way it is right now, I completely agree on that one at least, but the devs are working on improving that... And commenting on that within 1 WEEK of the game being launched, I just wonder what players expect from a non-AAA studio. Look at other games that have had years of development behind them, at Battlefront 2, at Destiny, at games like Fallout 76 with massive developers behind them, being botched up significantly worse, and in comparison, I don't see that giving this studio the benefit of the doubt as a bad thing.
Those developers provide excuses and then seem to make things worse and worse, because it's all about marketing, about making money, about milking the playerbase of every single penny. I think, seeing how the developers around here are reacting to things, is a looooooot more promising of future content, updates, fixes, everything.
When you say that the idea of giving them the benefit of the doubt went out the window, you forget all the various other games that were released with worse issues and problems the last few years. Dawn of War 3 comes to mind, which released in a state that just wasn't even fun to play AT ALL. I can understand that your personal situation makes you feel like this wasn't worth it, I can get that, but on a whole, this game has been rather successful. Saying that every 'aspect' of the game has a game breaking bug, means absolutely nothing, that's just words being uttered out of frustration for the specific aspects you have issues with and some other people have issues with.
Yes there are bugs, yes there are problems, yes the developer even has a history of handling things wrong. But so far, they are handling things the right way, listening to feedback, fixing bugs that are being reported and doing their best, that's what I see. No it's not perfect, no it's not great even in many 'aspects', there are problems. But my point is, at the very least, what has been shown so far and HOW the developers have handled things so far, allows someone to give the benefit of the doubt.
If you're so negative though, so against that idea, why even try?
@romeo Fair enough, it's just that, I've been used to games going for like, 2 - 4 weeks without any significant updates, and one week in, we're already getting a lot of issues dealt with. I just imagine adding a whole new campaign or even saying you're going to add a new campaign when there's so many other issues and content to deal with, is pretty hard.
If they say they're going to add something new, and perhaps plan it in like 2 months, but then miss that deadline over and over, that would ruin it for a lot of people as well.
@zucadragon them putting out another campaign would incentivize them to fix all the current problems with the base game that just launched.... we have all seen this dev abandon the first one with glaring problems still impacting the game.
Yeah, I wasn't here for the first game, at all, so I know nothing of that, but I've heard the same from other people, but with how they're handling this so far, I feel pretty confident about keeping up the support. I'm already enjoying what's there and spent like, 80 hours into it, in just a single campaign, so for me, I've already got my money's worth. But I'm looking forward to more.
I think the devs realize, that if they handle this game the way they did the previous one, and abandon it, that it's going to basically spell out their doom. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. No-one is going to want to give them the benefit of the doubt for a third game if they botch this one up!
r you put your fleet in guard position that it would disable or c
I think for position 5, it could perhaps provide a bonus to the defences in that system, like defensive platforms are a bit stronger, but it does automatically consume an extra turn after a fight. So when you defend, the enemy attacks, that whole fleet is then stuck in that system for a turn.
@yorilo Sounds pretty cumbersome, especially when I've got this special Macragge's honour ship I'm talking about.
The problem is, unless I specifically cripple my primary Spire fleet, because it NEEDS to go on missions. My second fleet has the Macragge and one other ship.
I get what you're saying, but I'm just in a situation where I'm now throwing a coin and hoping that I start off with the Macragge's Honour and not the other ship in that second fleet. And having a whole fleet with just 'one' ship is silly. I have found no way to remedy this situation, sure I can limit my first fleet's total points more so I can possibly take both fleet 2 ships with me, but that's a workaround.
That's doing the same thing as just having a whole fleet with just one ship. Now if the Macragge was part of my primary fleet, I could see your plan working, but as it currently stands, you can't move ships own between fleets, so sadly that's not an option.
Now in another thread someone said that it will always try to use a second fleet and pick the commanding vessel first, but I have often found that not to be the case, because that would be the Macragge's honour and I've had engagements to test this out, where I used my main fleet (Unchanged) and the Macragge fleet with 2 ships.
It sometimes picks Macragge to join in, and sometimes the other ship, eventhough I didn't change anything about ship composition or haven't leveled up or anything.
So, I've got some really strong fleets, I'm working towards the end game of the first campaign, I'm renown level 14. But everytime I bring a fleet into battle, it seems to randomly pick what to actually start with.
So eventhough I've got this awesome Macragge's honour in my fleet, because I'm bringing more ships than I can take into battle at once, it will sometimes start off with that ship, but then sometimes it will not. This is kinda frustrating, because it's obviously a very powerful ship, and I like to start off with a lot of power and if need be, switch out to other ships as some of mine get hurt. Now, I have to fight with diminished power at first, and when I'm disengaging ships, it comes lumbering in at the edge of the screen.
Meaning that often times it will be out of the fight for even longer because it's a very slow ship.
How does the system work for picking starting ships? And more importantly, is this system going to change so people can pick what they want to start with? Because otherwise, this is just, well, as I said, frustrating.
@hjalfnar_hgv That's not a good excuse, if problems have been answered, that has to be shown off, it's not a big task for a community manages to set up a "This has been answered" thread that shows the current state of things, sticky it at the top of the list, so people with questions can look there first to see if their question has been answered.
ou get these huge Tyranid invasions everythere and have to kill these chaos champions, but I only have 5 fleets with about 4-600 points which all exept one only have cruisers. I have unlocked battleships a few turns ago but can't afford them, I can't even afford to replace the ships that I loose.
Does somebody else have have this problem ?
The problem is trying to go all out fleets too soon, if you keep building new ships to the limit, you're going to have a hard time because your income will never grow. I'm at the same point you're at, and because I use specific fleets for specific functions (Like say, smaller fleets for defending fortress systems) in the first part of the game, I'm now in a situation where even with around 15 fleets around 700 points, I'm still earning around 1200 monies per turn.
Economy is very important, and it's worth it to upgrade forge worlds and mining worlds closeby them in order to up your resource gain instead of trying to increase your fleet and thus run out of funds. It's even worth it, if that situation arises, to just give up on specific systems being attacked by enemies, if those systems don't give you a resource or tactical benefit, just so you don't have to over commit.