Shallow Combat

[ch3cooh]

My final thought on AoA is, that it will not motivate me very long, to be honest.

Of course there is plenty of room to get better and quicker with economy and there are many different strategies, but combat itself is way too shallow compared to Wargame. Training to get more APM is not what I am looking for.

Yes AoA is not supposed to be like Wargame.
But after experiencing Wargame, I am simply bored by shallow combat of mainstream RTS.
The reason why I couldn't go back to CoH etc after EE is the reason why I won't really play AoA.

Edit:
Not really constructive, but that is my honest feedback.

[Opticalx]

Everyone is different.
Personally for me this game will fill the hole iv been missing in my gaming life.

[Thomas191]

sadly i agree with you, it seems too much of the focus is made on the macro economy side, and little on combat
the fact that all marines can be simply upgraded with machineguns prove this fact, it should be individual upgrade instead

[WarriorWounds]

Well, Keeping in mind the game is in beta and we are currently only playing mirror matches with the singular US faction, with no asymmetry from different match up diversity, I do agree the current iteration could use some more diversity, even for a mirror match, I hope as they continue to development the game they will focus on splitting units into further fleshed out roles more, currently a lot of units seem to perform too similar of a role.

[Salsifi]

You are a dreamer if you think that this game will change... only a month of work before release.

You have all informations in the e mail for the beta. They will work on these points and take the last part of the time to polish the interface.

Balance will be done after the release, like all other RTS.

I don't think they will postpone the release since there is no major bug.

And with the lack of RTS... AoA will be a top sale on Steam

[Selus]

I like wargame, I loved act of agrresion, are different games therefore can not be compared.
Purchase assured!

[ch3cooh]

are different games therefore can not be compared.

Only different things can be compared.
As I said, AoA is not supposed to be Wargame of course.
Still the lack of tactical depth in combat is a major flaw in my opinion.

Although I believe that more fighting over essential resources could make up for it.

[keebs63]

The worst part is that the combat is very close that of RUSE (one specific type of unit to counter another), which was a great game, while completely lacking the tactical and strategic depth of both Wargame and RUSE. It feels like more of an economy game than an actual combat game. I think I should have to worry less about economy and more about attacking/defending.

[bluuurrrr]

Here is the problem.

You have to find the balance for a successful game between tedious useless stuff like individually upgrading the scope on a single marine gun and actually having something fun to play.

A game enjoyed by 5 people due to the slow plodding meticulous nature of those who want to be able to specify the camouflage each individual unit is wearing in the field is going to be a boring RTS game for 99% of the people out there.

In the end - it's a game, not a simulation. I can deal with the mechanics of the game I don't like such as the resourcing and unneeded complications in the name of "innovation", but quite frankly the pace is slow and boring.