Feedback

[xxaosicxx]

Hi all,

I rarely provide feedback on forums for games - you buy what you buy, and you like it or you don't - however, I felt compelled to contribute in this instance given my passion for 40K, the lore, and the system. I've left a brief and broad review of the game on Steam, recommending the game, but with reservations. I thought I'd provide a more detailed analysis here. It's my hope that this feedback will be taken in the spirit it is intended - constructive, critical and honest. I read many (almost all) of the posts for the game on this forum last night, until late, and decided to sleep on it before making this post. While I'm sure many will disagree with my sentiments, as is their prerogative, I'm fairly confident that what I'm saying will ring true with many ardent players of the table-top game.

First, about myself, so you know where I'm coming from - I'm 36, male, from Manchester in the UK. I've been playing computer games since I was 5 (ZX Spectrum), have been programming since I was around 11 and though I now work in higher education, I have very close professional and personal ties to the games industry. My main computer-gaming platform is the PC, and I spend 20+ hours a week doing so. I've been playing table-top 40K for a good few years, and also regularly play a ton of other traditional games such as Munchkin, Pathfinder etc. I'm not here to insult anyone, and I'm not here to diminish the enormous effort that I'm sure has gone into 40K Armageddon.

Reading the feedback from others, it's clear that there has been SOME confusion, along the way, about what this product was intended to be. My perception - the reason that I forked out for the game, on Steam - was that this was going to be table-top 40K in digital form with a reduced rule set and with the limitations of the scenario of Armageddon. I understand, now, that this perception was borne out of MY desire to play table-top 40K on my computer, and is not necessarily as a result of anything I actually read on the Steam Store. I read the reviews and felt it was worth my money, so I took the plunge.

Honestly, I don't think I've ever been so disappointed with a game (with the exception, perhaps, of Dragon Age 2) for a long time. I'm still playing it, and I have around 9 hours game-time on it so far. Am I enjoying it? Sort of. I'm persevering, for now, in the hope that I'll sort of see the light and at some point it'll just "click" with me, and I'll "get it", but I've never launched a game, got into the mission and been so underwhelmed within a few clicks as I have with 40K Armageddon and thought "really, this is it??"

Not to say it's all bad of course. What I like about it, so far...

Unit choices - there's a wide range of units to pick from, including some obscure Forgeworld/Imperial Armour stuff that you rarely see in the table-top, and this is really nice.
The music and voice-acting - fitting, and appropriate to the setting.
The art-style - though the graphics are dated, the overall experience is absolutely fine, and the artwork is good, as is the detail in the models/units.

On the other side of things, there are areas I feel need some serious improvement...

1) The animations/"combat" are lacking and don't do justice to the battle you're trying your best to imagine is taking place. Does it have to be as detailed and smoothly animated as "Space Marine"? - no, of course not, but it could certainly have the sort of basic combat you get from other turn-based games like Civilization or even the computer game version of Risk! What you see on the screen doesn't at all feel like it represents what you're being told is taking place.

2) The UI is insufficient to allow for any kind of meaningful analysis of what unit would work best against another unit - so much information is missing - which is ludicrous when you consider how much space is being taken up by the UI, presumably to allow for it to run on a tablet device. Surely, on PC, we could shrink some of the buttons (my mouse pointer is distinctly smaller and more precise than my finger) and use the extra space to show the FULL stats for each unit/enemy. The message boxes are enormous, too, as is the text in then - it's just not necessary on a PC title.

3) Following on from the previous point, why on Earth can I not change the screen resolution?

4) I was so surprised by the mechanics of the game with regards to some rules which are fundamental to table-top 40K. The 40K rulebook has what is says are the basic/simple rules (the phases, their order, shooting, cover, taking wounds), and then it has the special rules which add on to the basic rules to form the detailed gameplay that table-top gamers are used to. I was anticipating that this game would pretty much stick by the basic rules, but then have it's own implementation for the special, more advanced, rules. For example:

a) The order of shooting/moving. On the table-top you move (if you wish) and then you shoot (or run) if you wish (unless you're sneaky, like the Eldar, and do both), and maybe, depending on your weapons/actions, you might get into close combat. I appreciate that this isn't the table-top game (and yes, I know it was never claimed that it is), but implementing such a fundamental rule would've made a HUGE difference to how this game is perceived by players of the table-top game.

b) Scouting. Not only can scouting units (like Ratling Snipers) not be placed ahead of the normal deployment zone, but they don't seem to benefit from any kind of better cover save for being small and sneaky, and when you try to move them (or any other unit) forward to see what's up ahead your movement is entirely expended by clicking once, a couple of tiles ahead. Forget the table-top (where there's no Fog Of War), in any game you needed to scout in, surely you'd move a bit, see what you can see, move a bit more, see what you can see, and then move your full move distance, assuming the coast is clear. The whole idea of scouting ahead is rendered impossible, because moving your unit once renders their movement entirely spent. If you DO try and push them forward, they inevitably end up surrounded and won't survive the round.

c) The requisition points system and the lack of a force-organisation chart is the other fundamental change from the table-top that really detracts from the experience of the game (yes, I know 7th Edition allows the play to dismiss the FoC, but we all know this is a sales tactic by GW). Each scenario should simply allow you to take along an appropriate army based on a points-value for the skirmish. This could, and should, vary between missions - but let's imagine that one mission allows you to take 1500 points along, and that you have to, as a minimum, take along one HQ unit (we'll get to that next), and two troops units. To fulfil 1500 points you'll certainly need more than that, so you'll (optionally) take another 2 troop units, and up to 3 heavy and 3 fast-attack units (or whatever you can afford to take, within the point limit) . This is so fundamental to the balancing of the game because it stops people taking armies of titans, however, if people wish to play a horde based game (tons of infantry, virtually nothing else) then they can, if they want to play an armour focused game, they can - but they still need the basic, minimum amount of troops for the force to be "legal". If people want to have troops in reserve, they can, but it counts towards their point limit. Low-powered units cost less than high-powered units. It's that simple. HQ, 100 points, 2 x Troops 200 points. Some scouts, 100 points. A couple of tanks, 200 points each, 400 points. A titan, 1000 points. Total, 2000 points. If someone wants to ditch the Titan and have 10 more troop units, they can. This is far more balanced than the "buy and field whatever you want" approach that we currently have.

d) No HQ units? No "Commander" (i.e yourself) that can be customised, and must be protected at all costs (the mission is forfeit if YOU die, surely).

e)"Buying" other units, mid-mission, is such a bizarre thing to do in a 40K-based game.

f) Flying units are damn-near useless. They are simply tanks that don't benefit from cover. They move like tanks (except over water) and can't even occupy the same time as a ground unit, or fly over mountains etc.

There's more I could say, however, I've written enough, and others have already said many of the other (more minor) points I was going to raise. Thanks for reading, and please understand that I'm not trying to bash anybody here, I just feel sufficiently strong about this that I felt I had to comment.

Cheers

Ben

PS:- You've got a typo on one of your mission objectives. I tried to post a link to a screenshot but apparently that looked too much like spam for the forum, so I'll just write it out instead. The "Defending Minos Crossing" mission objective reads as follows; "Control all three Victory hexes while and wait for additional orders."

[DownTheDrain]

Good post.
I thought about doing a lengthy feedback myself but pretty much everything has already been covered, so I might as well add my thoughts here.

The UI is insufficient to allow for any kind of meaningful analysis of what unit would work best against another unit - so much information is missing - which is ludicrous when you consider how much space is being taken up by the UI, presumably to allow for it to run on a tablet device.

Agreed.
I don't mind the size of the buttons so much as the lack of information. The combat predictions aren't all that helpful without knowing how much HP and armor my target actually has per unit.

The order of shooting/moving. On the table-top you move (if you wish) and then you shoot (or run) if you wish (unless you're sneaky, like the Eldar, and do both), and maybe, depending on your weapons/actions, you might get into close combat. I appreciate that this isn't the table-top game (and yes, I know it was never claimed that it is), but implementing such a fundamental rule would've made a HUGE difference to how this game is perceived by players of the table-top game.

This one I don't really mind, despite having played Warhammer 40k and Fantasy in the past.
I'm fine with any system whatsoever, as long as it works. Unfortunately that's not always the case here, which brings me directly to your next point.

The whole idea of scouting ahead is rendered impossible, because moving your unit once renders their movement entirely spent. If you DO try and push them forward, they inevitably end up surrounded and won't survive the round.

This. So much this.
The only viable method of scouting seems to be save scumming at this point. Ironically I find myself doing all the reconnaissance with Titans, heavy tanks or similar units that can take a hit or 5 if they run into insurmountable opposition. Special deployment zones, improved cover and being able to split up movement would not only improve the game mechanics but also add immersion.
As it is, most light units aren't even marginally useful because they take up precious core space.

The requisition points system and the lack of a force-organisation chart is the other fundamental change from the table-top that really detracts from the experience of the game (yes, I know 7th Edition allows the play to dismiss the FoC, but we all know this is a sales tactic by GW). Each scenario should simply allow you to take along an appropriate army based on a points-value for the skirmish.

I mostly agree with your assessment and suggested improvement, but for completely different reasons.
Even if you don't care about being true to the tabletop the current system is utterly terrible.
Due to the limited core forces and often very large Ork armies you're basically stuck with buying as many of the most powerful units as you can. A Titan is so much more effective than any infantry unit that would take up the same slot. In the long run that Titan is also cheaper since it doesn't take casualties every time an Ork shoots in its general direction. This is especially unfortunate since it makes the great unit selection almost redundant. There is no reason to ever field anything but the best from each category, unless you're looking for an additional challenge.

Flying units are damn-near useless. They are simply tanks that don't benefit from cover. They move like tanks (except over water) and can't even occupy the same time as a ground unit, or fly over mountains etc.

Another good point.
In their current form they don't even make viable scouts with their poor spotting range.

tl;dr
Solid feedback. I fully agree.

[Aekar]

Good point overall, nice first post, and nice background too (have about the same, so I credit it absolutely wholeheartedly ).
As you'll find out, the community here is about the best you might find.
This speaks very well of the spirit in W40k tabletop players.
I am sad not to have been among these players!

I wanted to point out that:

c) The requisition points system and the lack of a force-organisation chart is the other fundamental change from the table-top that really detracts from the experience of the game

... on this point, the game actually has a Requisition budget per mission (like 10 000 budget, this is an example) that is compared to your full battalion value.
You only receive the difference in points as requisition for the mission. If your battalion has 8000 value, you will receive 2000 points.
(reduced by the requisition required to cover previous losses)

In that area, it works like a game with a full budget to spend for every mission.
You could pretty much disband your entire army and rebuild it with that in mind; and then have a go at building it with troops, armor as you see fit.

There was a problem with the Titan high effectiveness, but it might be fixed with 1.02, and there is some "limitation" with the number of core slots.
I never used all my core slots after Act I, but that was in 1.01, Hard difficulty. Act I sounded more limited in core slots than later missions.

[Shrike]

Something I haven't seen mentioned yet, is the replenishing after a map has been completed. In PC the player decided which units to replenish and how. This is sadly lacking in W40K. Instead, there's some arbitrary rule which consumes available points to replenish seemingly random units This can't be explained away by saying this isn't PC but W40K, a different game. It should definitely be controlled by the player, there's really no argument against that! It's also weird you can up- and downgrade units without penalty. This may make sense in standalone scenario's, where you want players to have full freedom of choice in how they construct their army, but that's hardly logical in campaign mode. Basically, why change a proven concept?

[xxaosicxx]

Hey guys.

Thanks for the welcome, and your thoughts regarding my thoughts..it's interesting to hear different perspectives.

Aside from a number of minor niggles, there was one further issue I left out of my original post (because it was getting too long). This is something that doesn't affect gameplay at all, isn't concerned with points, rules or the design of the UI...

...my issue is that the game is so unceremonious upon mission completion. It's hard to explain - anyone who has played Civilization (any version) will understand. You put time into a game, you strike the winning blow, your enemy is defeated... MESSAGE BOX. "Victory". No sound, no fanfare, no FMV, no motion graphics...just... MESSAGE BOX. It's really underwhelming. I know it's petty, but it really makes a difference when you feel rewarded for your success. Dawn of War 2 (massive budget, AAA title) didn't have anything fancy after each mission; a graphic slides in from the side of the screen, your reward for the mission is shown (or chosen, depending on which DoW2 title you're playing) and you see a gauge of your mission performance (in time, kills etc). It's not much, but a few sound effects and a quick animation later and you're appropriately rewarded for your efforts for the last hour. Would it be so much to ask to even have the current victory box come in with a nice clunking-metal sound effect and a short quote from someone inspirational in the lore.

Or perhaps I should just man up :p

[Razz1]

xxaosicxx

Are you playing 1.02?

[xxaosicxx]

Yep.

[Aekar]

After victory (which message can be easily customized) there is an access to the next briefing, which can actually be a reward briefing of any length.
Some campaign scenarios do that.

It would be nice to introduce the idea of a "report briefing" (or rather debriefing) of our performance.
I can't figure out if mission tags can interact with briefing tags, perhaps Kerensky would have more info about that :p
If so, you could make a debriefing that includes the effect of having taken out so or so unit, or so or so turn, for a different message, or access to bonus missions or mission variants.

In PC the player decided which units to replenish and how. This is sadly lacking in W40K.

It has been mentioned actually, though it is always good to see this request.
I believe the devs made a huge move in the right direction with 1.02, so we can hope this might get addressed someday.

Actually, the way requisition works is "good" (with consequences though), but unexplained, and refining the way casualties are handled will also change the way we may focus on more resilient units.

[xxaosicxx]

After victory (which message can be easily customized) there is an access to the next briefing, which can actually be a reward briefing of any length. Some campaign scenarios do that

Very true, but I'm not even looking for something as substantial as that. Perhaps it's just me, but when you put time into something and come out the other side with a victory, it's really underwhelming for a simple, silent, messagebox to just appear on the screen. Civilization is the worst for this, by far - 20 hours of carefully growing your empire and you eventually get world domination, only to receive a simple message which you near-immediately dismiss and move on from.

Incidentally, I found this discussion on Reddit saying pretty much exactly the same thing (about Civ: Beyond Earth) http://www.reddit.com/r/civ/comments/2k ... rwhelming/ and here http://www.reddit.com/r/civbeyondearth/ ... as_a_text/

Obviously this isn't Civ, and as I said, I'm not expecting great things. Anyone who has succesfully (or even unsuccessfully!!!) completed a mission in Dawn of War 2 / Chaos Rising / Retribution will remember a little music plays, the victory "table" and standard appears, your efforts noted, your successes "recorded", with a satisfying CLANK of metal with each "award"....this is the sound, and feeling, of Warhammer 40,000. Not a silent message box.




It just doesn't seem like too much to ask from a game based in the 40K universe

EDIT: I just wanted to say, as well, that I hope I'm not overstepping any boundaries with any of this - I'm trying to be constructive, but I'm new here and it's not my intention to push my opinions on to people - they are just that, my opinions!

[Kerensky]

EDIT: I just wanted to say, as well, that I hope I'm not overstepping any boundaries with any of this - I'm trying to be constructive, but I'm new here and it's not my intention to push my opinions on to people - they are just that, my opinions!

Don't feel that way at all. I assure you we are always listening to feedback, it's vital for moving forward with the game post 1.0. There many reasons why the game has, or doesn't have, certain aspects to it, but it really isn't my place to make comments about why things turned out the way they did.

What I do know is that we made a solid game for 1.0, and we greatly look forward to player input and feedback that will help guide our plans and ideas well into the future of this title.

[Horst]

Sigh, makes my heart ache when I remember all these brilliant WH40k games from Relic...

[xxaosicxx]

I know, Horst...I must've played 130+ hours on the Dawn of War 2 games. I still want to play them now. Alas, the story twists don't come as much of a surprise when you've played them through so many times.

[Aekar]

Armaggeddon put me so much back into love of the W40K theme and history, that I reinstalled it.
But real time combat in DOW put me off.

It is so great to currently have a turn-based strategy game in the universe of W40K, that we rightfully want to have it in a very good, or greatest shape

[xxaosicxx]

I started an Eldar campaign on DoW2:Retribution last night again, since they were the only race I hadn't fully completed the campaign with...it's still great fun. So right now I'm dipping in and out between Armageddon and Retribution. I even considered getting stuck into finishing the last bit of painting on my Blood Ravens table-top army last night :p

It really is great to have a turn-based 40K game- and I think we all have the best interests of Armageddon at heart (albeit somewhat selfishly lol)

[larryed112]

Great post. I agree with many of your points, especially the scouting and aircraft points. I think that scouting could be easily improved if the spotting radius was a bit bigger on certain units or if the panzer corps system of move spot and then move again was implemented on special "scout" designated units - maybe ratlings, space marine scouts, salamanders, etc.

[Curator]

or if the panzer corps system of move spot and then move again was implemented on special "scout" designated units

yes! This please!

Aircraft strongly need to rethink indeed.

[IainMcNeil]

Hi guys,

thanks for the feedback. The more the better. One thing I wanted to point out is that this absolutely is not and never will be a tabletop conversion. The rules are not based on it and neither are the stats. The aim is to capture the look and feel of the universe which means the tabletop system and the book and all the other sources out there. If we have something that feels wrong because of the lore (wherever you're getting your sources) then we're happy to discuss changes. If you are asking it to be more like the tabletop system that absolutely is not going to happen. It is not what we want to do and it is not what we are permitted to do. I'm not trying to stop people posting feedback, just explaining that there is no chance of this ever becoming something like a tabletop version of the game.

There are a lot of differences to Panzer Corps as well and the reasons for these will probably become more apparent as we further develop the system. We've got lots of plans for what comes next so watch this space. We're also listening to feedback and making hit lists of things people want to see dealt with, so please keep it coming.

[xxaosicxx]

Incidentally, one thing I'd really like to see (that is in complete opposition to the tabletop game but does exist in the fluff, particularly in the novels) is scouts that are able to remain hidden unless they engage the enemy (or get too close, i.e. adjacent tiles). A squad of ratling snipers, or Space Marine scouts wearing camo cloaks, would be effective at...well...scouting out territory, if they could poke around the map and return information on enemy positions.

This would never happen in the tabletop (because there's no Fog of War) but is very much akin to the Gaunts Ghosts/Tanith First lore.

Just a thought...granted...not thought through properly :p

[JimmyC]

Scouts being able to move several times in 1 turn (like in PzC) really needs to be implemented please!

[Plaid]

If we have something that feels wrong because of the lore (wherever you're getting your sources) then we're happy to discuss changes.

Okay. Small arms damaging medium armour. Why is it here and can you remove it alltogether please?
It leads to shoota boy unit beating Leman Russ unit in duel. Feels wrong because of the lore.

By the way space marine basic infantry with bolters destroy looted Lemans even faster.