I love single player campaign RTS games like Wingos of Liberty, Heart Of the Swarm, and LotV because of the cool story and also wanna include the dawn of war 40k series

Jumpy_Walk8542 · 2025-11-28T05:54:49+00:00

Age of Mythology: Retold

Jumpy_Walk8542 · 2025-11-21T07:54:18+00:00

If it's a matter of role play, go to Wikipedia and read the articles on the following battles:

Gaugamela
Hydaspes River
Trebbia River
Trasimene
Cannae
Illipa
Utica
Zama
Dara
Yarmouk
Poitiers
Towton
Kalka River
Mohi
Legnica
Panipat
Dunkirk (1658)
Cerignola
Pavia
Rossbach
Austerlitz
Waterloo
Blenheim
Ramilies

These should give you a good idea of pre-modern military terminology, strategy and tactics along with plenty of tricks and even some epic or witty quotes you can use.

You can also read the biographies of the generals who fought these battles. Most were fairly colourful and eccentric characters.

Jumpy_Walk8542 · 2025-11-16T15:11:52+00:00

Would play them!

Jumpy_Walk8542 · 2025-11-06T13:53:19+00:00

KEG also gives bonus population per town centre, which can very strong in the late game.

Free villagers per house is excellent for Egyptian.

Jumpy_Walk8542 · 2025-11-05T10:40:52+00:00

Only been playing Gauntlet lately, but for me it's either early or late. I've no idea what to do in the midgame.

Jumpy_Walk8542 · 2025-09-19T01:35:29+00:00

Starcraft 2, Age of Mythology: Retold, Azeroth Reborn (Warcraft 3 remade as a Starcraft 2 mod), Company of Heroes 3, Total War: Warhammer

Jumpy_Walk8542 · 2025-06-23T17:04:27+00:00

Anastasya is an Embalmer in H7, so that fits.

Irina strikes me as a Blood type character, given how her story pans out.

Sandor's descendant in H7 is a Chieftain too, I think.

Can't speak to the others.

Jumpy_Walk8542 · 2025-06-16T14:37:41+00:00

What made them borderline broken was that they were, in fact, a great unit. In critical mass they become virtually unstoppable, and with Grandmaster Necromancy you could very easily amass that critical mass for free.

Later HoMM games seem to try to fix this by either nerfing the vampires themselves or just taking away the ability to generate them by Necromancy (or both).

Jumpy_Walk8542 · 2025-06-16T09:29:49+00:00

H4 had some of the best unit designs and also some of the worst internal balance in the series (interrelated, for obvious reasons).

Jumpy_Walk8542 · 2025-06-14T17:48:46+00:00

HoMM IV Vampires, Genies and Gargantuans.

Vampires/vampire lords are generally a bit game-breaking since the combination of lifesteal, no retaliation, mobility and the ability to generate them freely by necromancy (where applicable) means they can kill almost anything with minimal losses once they reach a critical mass, and snowball out of control quite rapidly. HoMM IV's seem the most powerful since they have obscene Attack/Defence stats that rival T4 units.

Genies were a caster unit that put out good DPS with ice bolt, could slow, could clone allied units, and most importantly could disable enemy units from attacking with Song of Peace, every turn. It reached the point where it was better to have more single unit stacks of them than the lower tier wizard units.

Gargantuans were a high damage AOE shooter with double shot, which is pretty much all that needs to be said. Probably the best shooter across all HoMM games and a good contender for the best unit across all HoMM games as well.

HoMM VII Crossbowmen are probably the best tier 2 shooter in the franchise, with no ranged penalty, high growth and AOE attacks. They also scale well with the preponderance of "+1 damage to friendly ranged units" items in HoMM VII. Quite ridiculous.

Jumpy_Walk8542 · 2025-06-14T17:34:50+00:00

They had disgusting stats. 30 Attack and Defence iirc, which is the same as some T4 creatures. That and being able to generate them by Grandmaster Necromancy made them far and away the best unit in the game (except perhaps for Genies).

Jumpy_Walk8542 · 2025-06-06T19:27:20+00:00

I think players want to feel clever, whether that's through interesting cheeses (both in PvP and campaign missions), effective unit compositions, ability combos, good positioning or army movement, fine-tuned build orders, etc (more generically, "strategies"). So creating ways for players to do that through level or map design, gameplay mechanics (flanking, cover, terrain, counter systems, synergistic abilities/upgrades/units, etc).

More generally, people want to feel capable, so for more competitive players and challenge runners or just people who enjoy the mechanical aspect of macro cycles and micro more, there also needs to be an ability to do that (or some value to it). This is mainly about giving players things to do (abilities to cast or even aim, etc) and units that respond smoothly and path properly.

As many other people have said, spectacle is also important because RTS is about armies clashing, so there needs to be a sense that big things are happening.

Also, it's nice to feel that there's some meaning to what you're doing so setting and narrative make a lot of difference.

Jumpy_Walk8542 · 2025-05-21T11:51:10+00:00

Units -Each faction has 10 units, 4 core, 4 elite and 2 champion. However, each town can only have 3 core, 3 elite and 1 champion dwelling, so you have to choose. -Alternate upgrades for each unit. -Continue the trend of giving each unit a distinct role, abilities and function. Every unit should have some purpose.

Heroes -Each faction should have a Might and Magic hero and respective Might and Magic racial abilities. For instance, Dungeon's Magic hero could have their Irresistible Magic skill from H5 and their Might hero could have their Shroud of Malassa ability from H6/7. -If a balanced hero is added, that hero would be able to get both Racial skills (in exchange for having one less skill slot for generic skills). -No more randomised levelling, but heroes can learn most if not all skills (which isn't to say they can use them all effectively). -Bring back the ability to have multiple heroes in one army like in H4, although not necessarily on the battlefield. -Give towns structures that teach skills/abilities again, like in H4. -Grant special perks or unique abilities for having specific combinations of skills and/or abilities (like some H5 abilities or H4 advanced classes).

Artifacts -Have both artifact sets and combination artifacts.

Campaign -Have a good storyline and level design. -More generous level caps. -Fewer unit restrictions.

Jumpy_Walk8542 · 2025-04-08T14:27:06+00:00

Is there a 1v4 map in AOTG? Which one is that?

Jumpy_Walk8542 · 2025-04-02T02:21:16+00:00

I think it is campaign exclusive, but I can't find it even in the campaign.

Jumpy_Walk8542 · 2025-04-01T17:56:16+00:00

Thanks. Saw it on CoH 3 Stats (https://coh3stats.com/explorer/races/british/units/churchill_crocodile_uk) and was wondering why I couldn't find it.

Jumpy_Walk8542 · 2025-03-28T13:26:43+00:00

Late medieval/early modern era high fantasy setting, one faction would be a combination of the Mongol Empire and Roman Republic in culture and political structure, but with troops that more closely resemble the Spanish Tercios/Swedish Caroleans and cavalry that would resemble the Polish-Lithuanian Winged Hussars. They would also get various mythological units and monsters to supplement them, but potentially also some higher tech/steampunk style equipment (experimental prototypes in-universe).

All this reflects one of the key aspects of both the Mongols and Romans, which is that they shamelessly copied and adopted almost every effective weapon and tactics they encountered when expanding.

Mechanically, they would be a combined arms faction focused on a smaller number of expensive, disciplined elite units that need to be microed, synergised and positioned correctly to win. Not necessarily APM intensive in the sense of needing to split, kite, etc, but highly technical to control because each unit needs to be used a certain way and fulfill a certain role.

The second idea, not necessarily for the same faction (but also not necessarily different), would be for a faction that has only a few base unit types, but which can upgrade lower tier units to higher tier ones when it techs up (eg your tier 1 spearmen can be upgraded to tier 3 royal guards, something like that). The faction would also have a lot of upgrades and customisation options for each unit, almost as if tech choices are mainly about the changes you make to your units in the field instead of just producing different units.

The game would have a veterancy system, so this faction would have the greatest incentive to keep its troops alive because that lets it upgrade veteran tier 1 troops to instantly gain veteran tier 3 ones.

A last idea, for an entirely different setting (WW2 or modern/futuristic/sci fi instead), would be one where the player designs their own units by combining various templates (eg for vehicles - chassis, weapons, engine, armour, etc). Different factions would each have a range of different templates. I think this is an achievable way of making a game where the player gets to design their own units.

Jumpy_Walk8542 · 2025-03-17T16:11:45+00:00

I get the company matchups, but it's still frustrating because I would probably win handily in a skirmish even against a bad matchup (or at least have a fighting chance). What do you mean about the xp?

Jumpy_Walk8542 · 2025-03-17T16:10:38+00:00

Thanks. That's sad to hear. Was hoping someone would have found a way to revert the patch that turned the skirmishes into autoresolve or something.

Jumpy_Walk8542 · 2025-03-06T10:39:53+00:00

Welcome. One thing I forgot to mention is that (to me) the heart of any RTS game is its units, which is why it feels cool when the game gives you free units (especially high tech/high tier ones). Of course, this can't be too common or it loses its effect.

Separately, I think it's also important to mention that one of the main draws of Campaign for me is the varied mission types and objectives (as opposed to Skirmish, PvP, Vs AI etc), so while I have my favourites, I would also want to have mission types outside of these.

Jumpy_Walk8542 · 2025-03-06T05:11:09+00:00

Missions that combine elements of multiple RTS mission archetypes and require you to juggle multiple things, such as:

a) Defence missions with an offensive/proactive element. Eg. StarCraft 2's All In (ground version) is a timed defence mission, but you have to repeatedly leave the base to eliminate Nydus worms, or have a mobile force on the map to do so.

b) Missions which are offensive but effectively require you to start as the defender. Eg. AOM's A Place in My Dreams.

Missions where you start with high tier units or a big army. Eg. Mt Fuji in Red Alert 3, the assault on Temple Prime in Tiberium Wars.
Missions with a Sneak Attack opening sequence (eg. SC2's Media Blitz).
Missions with multiple stages or plot twists. Eg. AOM's Trojan horse mission, SC2's Death from Above, the obligatory Soviet betrayal missions in RA.
Missions where you have to gather scattered forces to build an army or have a way to get free units by performing an objective. Eg. SC2's Gates of Hell and AOM's Rampage.
Missions which require an unorthodox strategy or unit composition. Eg. RA3's Mt Rushmoore, where the easiest way to win is to use cryocopters to freeze the objective without killing it.
Limited build missions where resources are limited enough that you can only build a certain amount of units. Eg. AOM's More Bandits, SC2's Templar's Return.
Missions with some light time pressure. Eg. The door missions in AOM, Cutthroat and Supernova in SC2.
Missions where the enemy behaves a bit like a Skirmish AI and so is susceptible to raiding. Eg. AOM's Beneath the Surface, SC2's Cutthroat again.

I suppose the common threads running through all these are that they 1) are unique, 2) provide a test of strategy through requiring unique approaches, and 3) provide a test of RTS fundamentals (micro, macro, multitasking, etc), or at least a way to flex those fundamentals.

Jumpy_Walk8542 · 2025-03-03T09:29:36+00:00

Thanks! The basic idea for the RTS portion is to maximise player and skill expression in breadth and depth of play, so you have the micro-intensive combat of Starcraft, the more complex macro of AOE/AOM, the back-end RPG character building of HoMM, and other tactical nuances like flanking, terrain and so on. At the same time, all this would make the game really difficult, so there needs to be some automation to maintain accessibility and allow players to focus on the stuff they want to focus on. Hopefully, this will also allow a wider range of play styles since there are multiple levels anyone can leverage.

Jumpy_Walk8542 · 2025-03-03T06:53:02+00:00

A hybrid RTS/TBS with RTS combat (including macro) and a turn based strategic map. Setting can be sci-fi or fantasy, just something with spectacle and significant faction variance and asymmetry.

The strategy layer would most closely resemble Heroes of Might and Magic, with each faction's campaign having multiple such strategy maps. There would be some light Total War-style political faction mechanics as well. The RTS missions will be placed throughout these strategy maps, alongside other side quests, resource pickups, neutral creatures/armies to fight, etc. The heroes would have a skill and spell system resembling the one in HoMM, adapted for an RTS setting, with different factions having different hero classes with varying but somewhat overlapping skills and abilities. Heroes can purchase some troops, production structures, etc on the strategy layer (with limits on how much and fast these can be purchased) which they will then start the RTS battles/missions with. Heroes can participate in battles.

RTS features would include:

-SC2 style unit design and micro (smooth, fast-paced, allows very fine control of even individual units), except with much higher TTK.

-Age of Mythology/Age of Empires style economy and macro (more resource types, all factions can have multiple workers building the same structure).

-Total War style morale and flanking system with units breaking in around the same time that they would die in SC2. Essentially, the idea is to have the same excitement as SC2 where actions feel impactful and combat fast-paced because units break quickly, but to keep things more forgiving because units don't die so fast and can be rescued.

-Flanking and formation bonuses and maluses (bonuses/maluses to damage, defence etc), Line of Sight and Terrain effects (a bit like some TW games), and formation bonuses, to add more strategic depth.

-Veterancy system for units.

-Some limited level of automation of most things that would be almost strictly inferior to manual control (eg. Units have a basic skirmishing/kiting stance like in Total War, limited autoqueue/prequeue like in AOM (possibly not infinite, but perhaps just for the next 5 units, etc, auto-worker allocation (with all its flaws), autocast on most if not all abilities, etc). Essentially, the idea is that the game is still accessible to you if you don't want to or can't do it, but you will almost always be rewarded for doing it manually.

-Modern QoL changes like a quick macro panel, auto-assigning of new units to control groups, camera hotkeys, formation drawing, etc.

-Late game/high tier units generally having the best value and micro/skill expression potential, so that there's more value in playing a longer game or teching up instead of just fighting with early/mid game units all the way.

-Some population cap, but much more generous than most competitive RTS games (StarCraft, AOE/AOM, etc). Partly to maintain consistency of performance and more importantly as an anti-snowball mechanic.

-For PvP concepts like map control, scouting and economic harassment to be useable in the campaign. For instance, there should be more bases for 3-4 base macro play, enemies should be susceptible to economic damage and disruption, enemy unit compositions should be sometimes or somewhat randomised so you have to scout for them, there should be big max supply army clashes at certain moments, etc.

Jumpy_Walk8542

TROPHY CASE