Slitherine

So, my first gameplay question regarding this new game is about multiple weapons.
I thought this was a great idea when I first heard about it ... but either I'm missing something or the implementation is the worst EVER.
How do you disable one of the weapons? In the manual, it says some weapons are about risking more damage, but it appears to be impossible to tell a unit to attack with just a specific weapon?
This appears to be impossible, which would be pretty embarrassing...
_____
rezaf

weapons are done on range tbh, as if you have 2, one will be short or medium ranged, other will be longer, so no need to disable one, as you only fire at one target at a time, choice is made on weapon selection from what ever reaches it, i think

We might allow firing individual weapons on special units like Titans, but doing this for all units in the game would do more harm than good. Our goal was to streamline the gameplay as much as possible, not force the players to micromanage every unit. So, the units fire with all weapons which can reach selected enemy, and others just remain unused. This is similar to Panzer Corps where you spent full attack action to finish off a crippled unit, even if technically you only needed 1 shot on it, not ten shots of the full attacking stack.

PS. Welcome to this forum rezaf. Always nice to see a familiar face.

Rudankort wrote:We might allow firing individual weapons on special units like Titans, but doing this for all units in the game would do more hard than good.

*sigh* How I missed your all or nothing attitude.
But I'm honored to get a reply directly from you (and that you even recognized my user name).

As for weapon selection ... I agree the default mode of attack should be how it works currently, but would it really been so hard to allow players to click on a weapon to make it "red", thus preventing it from firing that turn?
I'm not yet familiar enough with the game's mechanics to judge about this, but either having multiple weapons is basically pointless except for a few edge cases or being able which weapons to attack with should have been a given.
Unfortunately, I'm leaning towards the former.

I should make another thread about artillery, because I feel indirect weapons are kinda useless? This is one example where it should be able to attack with the indirect fire weapon only and thus prevent counterfire, but this appears to be impossible. Also, artillery has exactly the same (or less, I guess) range than any bolter? What kind of artillery is that?

Rudankort wrote:Our goal was to streamline the gameplay as much as possible, not force the players to micromanage every unit.

So far, it feels you guys overdid it with the steamlining, but I'll play some more before I can really make up my mind about this.

Rudankort wrote:PS. Welcome to this forum rezaf. Always nice to see a familiar face.

Always there to pester you.
Seriously, I'm not much of a WH40k fan, I mostly purchased this on day one to support you in your endeavours. I harbor that dream of you at some point in the future going back to WW2 and making a PzC sequel or something.
_____
rezaf

rezaf wrote: As for weapon selection ... I agree the default mode of attack should be how it works currently, but would it really been so hard to allow players to click on a weapon to make it "red", thus preventing it from firing that turn?

That would only be meaningful if you could use different weapons on different targets, but this is exactly unwanted micromanagement combined with broken "one attack per turn" rule. Ammo is unlimited in this game, so that's not a problem.

The reason why I want to avoid micromanagement as much as possible is, if it is allowed and some people use it, others will have to use it too to remain competitive (in MP especially, but in SP too). But not all people enjoy it. Me personal preference is for streamlines gameplay, so let's just say I'm doing games which I like myself.

rezaf wrote: I'm not yet familiar enough with the game's mechanics to judge about this, but either having multiple weapons is basically pointless except for a few edge cases or being able which weapons to attack with should have been a given.
Unfortunately, I'm leaning towards the former.

Weapons have different ranges, different accuracy per hex penalties, different direct/indirect stats, and you face enemies with all these differences as well. So, you need to carefully choose engagement range and exact position from where you attack. This is basically the point to have several weapons. Not to mention it's an important aspect of Warhammer 40k.

rezaf wrote: I should make another thread about artillery, because I feel indirect weapons are kinda useless? This is one example where it should be able to attack with the indirect fire weapon only and thus prevent counterfire, but this appears to be impossible. Also, artillery has exactly the same (or less, I guess) range than any bolter? What kind of artillery is that?

Artillery units have widely different ranges, but some of them have the longest ranges in the game.

rezaf wrote: Seriously, I'm not much of a WH40k fan, I mostly purchased this on day one to support you in your endeavours. I harbor that dream of you at some point in the future going back to WW2 and making a PzC sequel or something.

Thanks for that, and although I won't give any promises right now (I'm not the only person this depends on), I think that the perspective of a PzC sequel is becoming increasingly real with W40k finally released.

I think that the perspective of a PzC sequel is becoming increasingly real with W40k finally released.

Rudankort wrote:That would only be meaningful if you could use different weapons on different targets, but this is exactly unwanted micromanagement combined with broken "one attack per turn" rule.

No, attacking something else would be impossible anyhow because of the one attack per turn rule. But I outlined the scenario above - as it stands, you cannot order an artillery piece to attack a target with indirect fire only.
Insanity!

Rudankort wrote:Ammo is unlimited in this game, so that's not a problem.

For energy weapons this makes sense, but other than that, I wish ammo were still a factor. By steamlining out such gameplay nuances you are also steamlining out the tactical possibilities that relied on them.

Rudankort wrote:The reason why I want to avoid micromanagement as much as possible is, if it is allowed and some people use it, others will have to use it too to remain competitive (in MP especially, but in SP too). But not all people enjoy it. Me personal preference is for streamlines gameplay, so let's just say I'm doing games which I like myself.

Understood - but see my last sentence. PzC was a very simple game to begin with. Why not steamline out the player having to move his units as well? This is just busywork. Let's make it like a tower defense game and have units move and fire on their own!

Rudankort wrote:Weapons have different ranges, different accuracy per hex penalties, different direct/indirect stats, and you face enemies with all these differences as well. So, you need to carefully choose engagement range and exact position from where you attack. This is basically the point to have several weapons. Not to mention it's an important aspect of Warhammer 40k.

Maybe this will only become clearer when you have a wide variety of units at your disposal. Right now, I'm seeing very little nuance. In fact, I'm inclined to say everything being ranged units kinda breaks the game. It's too easy for both sides to mob up on a single unit and units appear too fragile. Those that should be able to take a pounding also have less base strength, so in effect, they die just as quickly.
But once again, maybe playing more and thus getting access to a wider variety of units will adjust my view.

And considering how this was discussed in the PzC forums time and time again, I'm very disappointed you went with a straight unit slots approach again - especially since point values for battles are a staple of WH40k.

Rudankort wrote:Thanks for that, and although I won't give any promises right now (I'm not the only person this depends on), I think that the perspective of a PzC sequel is becoming increasingly real with W40k finally released.

I wasn't asking for any promises, but supporting your studio now by driving it's sales (even though I'm of course just a single drop of water in the ocean) might increase the chances of that happening ever so slightly.
_____
rezaf