You're right that the game isn't very casual friendly. In fact, it's pretty hard core even, it's easy to die and there's a lot of buttons for someone who hasn't played much 1st/3rd person shooters. For players who are just starting to play the game and aren't used to the controls, I'd suggest to set the AI accuracy down a few steps, have less soldiers in the game, start with even bases and skip a few ranks. The player's own role is significantly higher if he/she is the only one who can shoot straight, and better shooting than anyone else + better chances at staying alive = potential victory.
I find that the actual battles in single player can be generally seen as these two elements:
1) Your faction brings the mass of soldiers that fights against an enemy, possibly equal in size, and they are happy to just crash on each other pretty openly and then keep on fighting on that ground, dying and getting reinforced, until the fight resolves in favor of one faction. The AI vaguely tries different approaches by sending the squads in from various angles, but let's face it, the commander AI isn't much of a strategist, he's just trying to achieve a balance. The squad leaders are just trying their best to survive and kill and the members support them.
2) This is where the player steps in. Depending on the case, you have at least two qualities which make you important: wits and aim. You, as a single soldier or a squad leader, can turn the tide of a battle by being either the one who finds a weak spot in the enemy's side and gets to a good position to clear the way for the front line to advance, or by being the one who manages to survive in the middle of the battle chaos long enough and shoot better than the AI.
This is just a generalization, there are factors that matter quite a lot in the battles like the amount of usable cover in a particular spot, head count differences, how many reinforcements are stuck in minor battles outside the main battle perimeter, also counting simple luck.
I think I know what you mean by stalemates, but I'm also confident that there's always a way to resolve the situation and it's the player that usually has the abilities to initiate the solution. It may take some time and trying different approaches, but I think that's the way it should be. I'm glad the game forces the player to think that "this isn't going anywhere", but I hope most of players will end up trying another approach rather than quitting the game
Even I spent a great deal of time fighting in one place in the new map banging my head on the enemy front line with my AI buddies, until I figured a good way to help my front line advance. I found it extremely fun that the game, that I had developed myself and played the heck out of, managed to hand out a new challenge for me even after all this time. I'm hoping some of the players will experience similar moments of satisfaction of being able to turn the course of the battle in favor of one's faction.
It's probably my playing style, but I never had the feeling that I would significantly benefit from knowing exactly where the rest of the faction's soldiers are. I can see some of the other soldiers on my screen, and I can get some coarse idea of where there are battles and soldiers in the surroundings by taking a glimpse on the map view.
For the multiplayer, we played coop with 6 players and tried to stick in the same area basically forming a squad. I guess it would've been much better if the others would've been more familiar with the game. They just kept getting killed all the time
As an experienced player playing with inexperienced players, voice communication would've helped a lot. In a LAN, it would've been just perfect.
Login
FAQ
Search
