Rts genre category is small enough that we can call this an rts game, if we start making sub categories for RTS games there’s going to be like 1 in each category
Turtle mechanics with defensive advantage is fine if it comes with a large economic cost, so that players who are good at macro but bad at micro can still eek out an attritional victory.
Of all the non SC2, AoE, and SupCom RTS games I've seen people try recently this one looks the best. The two games you tried months ago just didn't do anything better than SC2, but this game offers something unique, fast, and fits your play style of limited unit builds.
+1, and it's free. Just play the scenarios before you try multiplayer, or spectate a lot, it's got a lot more depth than you realise and it really helps to know the basics
Looks like a fun game, I'd definitely like to see more of this from time to time, ideally with more SC metaphors so we can understand a bit :) Id really enjoy seeing how this goes with all the units unlocked and more on level opponents
The game I play is often called an RTT as well. Dawn of War II if anyone is curious. The game is played with a mod these days which has taken over patching the game since the developers don’t support it anymore. Even if this game is good, mechanically, it lacks imagination. The units have aesthetic designs a 9 year old could come up with. Definitely good for those who care only about mechanics and not about the storytelling aspect of these games.
After long consideration and grinding to diamond in this game.. yeah it is the future of rts, this is exactly what RTS needed and to be honest this game ruined me, I will probably never play classic rts again... Watching esports is a whole different animal, I find battle aces quite boring to watch, BUT to play its soo much more fun.
BA is incredibly good, I would say it is an ideal companion for some classic RTS you like. And this is also the case when it is easy to start playing, but very difficult to achieve perfection.
@@cuddlecakes7153 facts man I used to be a beast in halo wars 2 got the highest rank after grinding custom games with a bunch of randos in an Xbox group chat. Learned a lot of builds and then ran all over them on ladder. Been a while though don’t remember the details of a lot of builds just general stuff. Unfortunately at the high end of gameplay we just all go fast early aggression and it’s really the only way to play and becomes boring because you essentially do the same thing every match. Had to make a Smurf so I could play how I wanted to and have fun. I imagine that’s why most people smurf in games
If you stream more of this, I'll definitely watch. I like how it's an accelerated RTS. It has the strategy, especially played by pros. But it does skip the low unit count early game.
I was in the hospital a couple years ago and looking for a mobile RTS. I found Acies: Battle Runes to be a lot like starcraft. Same map design with minerals, gas and a ramp. No races, you get 7 cards in your deck and that determines what units you have. A few major differences than starcraft but it plays exactly like starcraft and a touch screen is surprisingly good at RTS. So, I would recommend everyone who's a starcraft fan to play Acies on mobile. I really enjoy it.
While the core idea of customizing your army with a unit deck seems quite interesting, the gameplay, as it is so far, didn't impress me much. RTS is a very niche genre, and without a solid campaign, world / setting to immerse yourself in, it becomes even more niche. I see a lot of these new RTS titles focus mostly on the PvP aspect, hoping to rival the success of StarCraft (or something like DotA even, which is after all mostly PvP). All of this happens to the detriment of any kind of narrative or world building within the game. If you can't draw people in with something immersive, the only other choice is to pump a lot of money to promote the esports side of things, which requires a big budget. And I don't think these companies have that.
Well said man. SC1 wasn't made for esports but became popular and good because of its setting and gameplay. New RTS seem to forget this. Focus on making a good game for the normies first (cool setting, SP Campaign) before worrying about competitive play. I know people will say SC2 was made for esports but it doesn't really count as it's basically the same formula as SC1 with slight modifications
In pure game design theory as long as there is resource management and unit production etc (which there clearly is) it's no longer just a tactical game but it is a strategy game. Another thing our game design teacher used to say is tactics are on the scope of a single squadron, if it's about a war then it's more of a strategy game I guess the Fast Action Real Time Strategy acronym really does suit it best
Tactics tends to deal with smaller units. How do I take that hill? Strategy tends to be the highest level. A strategic bomber wins a war by wiping out a city. What is our strategy for winning the war? You prepare strategies and they take time to unfold. The area in-between is Operations. Operation Overlord, D-Day, was certainly bigger than taking a beach, but smaller than winning even a country. The RTS genre itself is rarely, rarely strategic. If you can't end the war in the game it probably isn't strategic
@@Pangora2 well yeah that's in real life but in the scope of a game if you can break another player's resource generation or army production (or anything usually referred to as macro) that's purely strategy and the game is no longer just about tactics. I could see the argument for campaigns but imo multiplayer games are full fledged wars given that you have starting resources, you have bases which you can lose tactically but losing them all is similar to losing the war (and that's how you lose the game). The very fact that people GG and leave in StarCraft for instance is a proof that even though they might have won a tactical encounter they could have lost the war and would rather leave Another example of a purely strategic concept is build orders, they can affect tactical encounters early on but it doesn't matter if the macro ends up too lacking or the tactical wins are not decisive enough. So you could still lose the war (the game)
Looks like a lot of fun! Like all these new games it's really lacking that sweet "punch" Starcraft has with it's incredible animations and sound effects, but I'm sure that'll improve with time
For those that played it. How much of a factor is your deck composition? Can you enter a game, and essentially "lose" just because of how bad your deck is?
Yeah, Golems, there was another one where you'd constantly have units spawning and you'd fight in the middle, but I can't remember the name of it, I think it was like HELL or something in all caps.
nice mammoth display kinda reinforces my idea to have them be the frontal support units for mortars and heavy hunters (think SC goliath of the latter) instead of king crabs or crusaders
David Kim said this game is for people new to RTS, yet people who been playing RTS for years find this game Extremely Fast Pace and intence! Certainly not for noobs!
i think a big factor of this game that people seem to be missing is how short not only the games are, but the sessions of play. you can hop into this game for 20 minutes and knock out a few games, then go do something else. it’s not a game you play for 3 hours straight.
@@gabrielpowers766 well, to be more honest. I did put in 5 hours with a buddy, but he quit because I beat his roach rushes with skytoss. And not nearly as fun without a buddy. He got all mad too, I’m like why you cheesing me when we literally just started learning lol
Thanks for the video and changing the game to "change a pace". My observation for now: Really simpliefied, which allows you to focus on micro. I don't like you knowing the opponents deck and fog of war is too visually distracting.
Well, i can guarantee you that this game will be pretty big, maybe bigger than SC2 in long-term. It's very simple, 95% of gameplay is action while SC2 is like 3-10% usually. Matches are fast, gameplay is smooth. This is game not only for RTS fans, it's just better. People currently likes this a lot, there is some crying idiots, but they has always problems about everything. So solid start, for sure one of the upcoming bigger titles. It's also much better for e-sport than SC2. You know what is going on from first game, you dont need to even play this. Everything is simple and looks great, it's just better for watching than SC2. SC2 is pretty fun to watch too, but there is like 6-7 minutes of 0 action and just base building same thing over and over, while most of the people dont even understand what are they doing. And for those people who thinks there is no depth - imagine 0 depth game when in the game will be +100 unique units, infinite amount of decks and so on, it's same thing as LOL. LOL is simple in concept but because you have 160 characters and tons of items game is complicated af. This game has no bigger problems, it's just simple and good idea. It's not perfect, but nothing really is.
This looks alot more managable then RTS ladder which i just get panic attacks from how much i need to do and micro but also macro at the same time still though i have single brain for micro where i can only control 1 unit to the better preformance so idk, but it looks quite interesting
I want the opposite of this, this is about being quick and precise micro, I want an rts where slow methodical thinking matters more than good movement and precision
@@brandonsaffell4100 I'm playing them too but I do enjoy real time as well, just not when it's so fast paced, I'm more for casual level aoe2 than any level of sc2 if that describes it well
As a wc3 player, I can say it is just too simple for me... Idk, just doesn't appeal to me personally. I get LoL and other games are "amazing" and "easy" for everyone. But the VG industry really is dry IMO, hope to see a good RTS game like zero space.
Ehhh... I don't really like the way that this feels super streamlined and "dumbed down," like a mobile port. I'm sure it's fun in its own way but I don't think it has a lot of staying power.
I don't even play starcraft but I watch uThermal and even I can tell he's just sitting around doing nothing, the real actions per minute is like, 25, maybe he's clicking around while talking but it's just an auto battler where your choice of units is what drives the game, along with some minor amount of positioning and splitting of units.
As a classic RTS (C&C, SC2, WC3) fan this doesn't appeal to me at all. I love those games but on a more casual level. This game is more 'casual' in design on the surface but the fast pace of combat means it demands all the CPM and micro skills in combat that is a barrier to RTS without the fun of base building stuff (which yes, I find that fun). You also lose out on the campaign and excellent mission design. I think where this game shines is in Esports / Twitch potential. The minimap showing strategies and expansions makes this more interesting to watch casually to me than a SC game. I'm more in the loop as a non-hardcore viewer even if I can't follow everything. Its a better viewing experience. Maybe this finds a home or even dominates in that regard over time. This game has potential for sure and I want it to succeed...its just not for me.
My problem with this is that it seems really really basic. It's like a modern browser game rather than a full standalone title. I can't imagine any kind of story, single-player or interesting vs AI modes, so there goes a large part of the RTS audience. I guess the best thing I can compare it with is something like DOTA or Lol, but no heroes, no creeps and you control the units. But aren't the heroes the main draw of those games? I remember there being plenty of "choose your units and battle it out" custom maps (kinda similar to this) in WC3, and none of those caught on like DOTA. The pace is really fast too, so you get to quickly explore the available strategy options and the meta will settle quickly, after which you're left only with improving your timings and unit control, so I wonder about the game's longevity.
Fun seeing more rts games but I'm not a fan of how fast paced it is. This game makes it hard to become invested in whatever you're doing since there's a timer. Also, I like macroing and building static defense as much as I like the action, but macroing/base defense isn't important in this game.
its very important in my experience, the battles will be won or lost on eco, having an extra base on your opponent and holding let me get a bunch of units on them, plus my cheesy strats get crushed against a heavy defense. akin to holding against a Zergling rush, once they stop my early pressure im in big trouble if i didn't get enough damage off
Almlst feels like sc2 dlc which helps you learn microing, but fun nonetheless. Too fast paced for me. Sc2 as well but there at least you have the scouting aspect and woreying abput prosuction buildings and you can do amazing things with workers. I really dont see a better rts than sc2 oming out anytime soon.
Not a good vibe for sure. If you really want to ditch the base building with just relatively casual small armies jostling it out with composition being decisive factor, just play Command&Conquer 4 which despite the moderate age still looks gorgeous with love to damage feedback/destruction to every single non-light unit, with damage types (even projectiles themselves feedback when they're the correct counter) and unit upgrades. Especially compared to... whatever bland-looking battles we see in the video, with dead units just disappearing in a puff of smoke, which are all just in big ol' clumps, meanwhile Beyond All Reason (completely free to play) allows spacing, fanning, line, dispersing and whatnot with a single flick of the mouse to have units battle it out with a resemblance of strategy and corresponding unit features. Again, totally agree on mobile game feel of this bland game in the video, I'd much prefer see him play C&C4 instead back when the video was recorded.
Battle Aces isn't really an RTS, it's more of a RTT (real time tactics). So no, I don't think it's what RTS needs, because it's targeting a different niche. I also don't like how the result of the game could be determined by your unit loadout before it even starts. If your opponent happens to picks a unit that you have no counter to, you're screwed.
rtt would be games like Mechcommander, you control like 5 or less units with specific weapons or abilites battle aces is a rts, company of heroes and dawn of war 2 are rts ...
Battle Aces looks like a Custom mini game not an actually full RTS game. It might be fun for a couple of hours but not something to invest into masters for years of your life.
I have a feeling that there is less and less strategy in modern RTS. Without scouting, without building a logistic its only unit movement left. Like in micro tutorial in SC2.
From a business perspective the total lack of personality is a big issue IMO. I hope it's successful as the core gameplay looks great, but I expect a lot of people will just find it bland regardless of how good the gameplay is.
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 88 | คู่เอก "ป้อมเพชร vs อัสลามจอน"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/1ZqTVVbMgbo/mqdefault.jpg)
Personally I think it's a Fast Action Real Time Strategy game. Or FARTS for short.
Nice acronym there lowko😂
Dutch oven.
xdd
Sponsored by Taco Bell.
What’s another word for crazy? 😂
Rts genre category is small enough that we can call this an rts game, if we start making sub categories for RTS games there’s going to be like 1 in each category
XD True
I've played a dozen or so games, and still havnt made a judgement, but the unit movement is very smooth which was a big plus for me
Turtle mechanics with defensive advantage is fine if it comes with a large economic cost, so that players who are good at macro but bad at micro can still eek out an attritional victory.
looks like the unit animations are very clean, can actually tell which units are what like in sc2
Of all the non SC2, AoE, and SupCom RTS games I've seen people try recently this one looks the best. The two games you tried months ago just didn't do anything better than SC2, but this game offers something unique, fast, and fits your play style of limited unit builds.
bot
@@david7384Pathetic argument
Love to see you checking out up-and-coming RTS games!
"crab people, crab people, Look like crab, work at mobile stores like people!".
Play beyond all reason, best rts out there rn
+1, and it's free. Just play the scenarios before you try multiplayer, or spectate a lot, it's got a lot more depth than you realise and it really helps to know the basics
This feels like the Call of Duty of RTS games. Arcadey and low stakes. Looks right up my alley
I enjoy how fast the games are, makes an interesting watch
i actually like how its simplified to make it faster, i wouldn't mind seeing more :O!
Looks like a fun game, I'd definitely like to see more of this from time to time, ideally with more SC metaphors so we can understand a bit :) Id really enjoy seeing how this goes with all the units unlocked and more on level opponents
The game I play is often called an RTT as well. Dawn of War II if anyone is curious. The game is played with a mod these days which has taken over patching the game since the developers don’t support it anymore.
Even if this game is good, mechanically, it lacks imagination. The units have aesthetic designs a 9 year old could come up with. Definitely good for those who care only about mechanics and not about the storytelling aspect of these games.
After long consideration and grinding to diamond in this game.. yeah it is the future of rts, this is exactly what RTS needed and to be honest this game ruined me, I will probably never play classic rts again... Watching esports is a whole different animal, I find battle aces quite boring to watch, BUT to play its soo much more fun.
BA is incredibly good, I would say it is an ideal companion for some classic RTS you like. And this is also the case when it is easy to start playing, but very difficult to achieve perfection.
This is a great addition to the tired norms of the RTS genre
I just want Halo Wars 3. I still play the second one every few years
Dang... Halo Wars 3 would be so nice ;-;
Hmm... It was good, it didn't really scratch my RTS itch but I'm not sure if this really would either.
@@cuddlecakes7153 facts man I used to be a beast in halo wars 2 got the highest rank after grinding custom games with a bunch of randos in an Xbox group chat. Learned a lot of builds and then ran all over them on ladder. Been a while though don’t remember the details of a lot of builds just general stuff. Unfortunately at the high end of gameplay we just all go fast early aggression and it’s really the only way to play and becomes boring because you essentially do the same thing every match. Had to make a Smurf so I could play how I wanted to and have fun. I imagine that’s why most people smurf in games
The fast pace seems nice.
Seems pretty fun. If the composition of decks is divided by faction cards & neutral cards will be really really dope
If you stream more of this, I'll definitely watch. I like how it's an accelerated RTS. It has the strategy, especially played by pros. But it does skip the low unit count early game.
I was in the hospital a couple years ago and looking for a mobile RTS. I found Acies: Battle Runes to be a lot like starcraft. Same map design with minerals, gas and a ramp. No races, you get 7 cards in your deck and that determines what units you have.
A few major differences than starcraft but it plays exactly like starcraft and a touch screen is surprisingly good at RTS.
So, I would recommend everyone who's a starcraft fan to play Acies on mobile. I really enjoy it.
While the core idea of customizing your army with a unit deck seems quite interesting, the gameplay, as it is so far, didn't impress me much. RTS is a very niche genre, and without a solid campaign, world / setting to immerse yourself in, it becomes even more niche. I see a lot of these new RTS titles focus mostly on the PvP aspect, hoping to rival the success of StarCraft (or something like DotA even, which is after all mostly PvP). All of this happens to the detriment of any kind of narrative or world building within the game. If you can't draw people in with something immersive, the only other choice is to pump a lot of money to promote the esports side of things, which requires a big budget. And I don't think these companies have that.
Well said man. SC1 wasn't made for esports but became popular and good because of its setting and gameplay.
New RTS seem to forget this.
Focus on making a good game for the normies first (cool setting, SP Campaign) before worrying about competitive play.
I know people will say SC2 was made for esports but it doesn't really count as it's basically the same formula as SC1 with slight modifications
Focusing on the eSports aspect first is like building a house from the roof
In pure game design theory as long as there is resource management and unit production etc (which there clearly is) it's no longer just a tactical game but it is a strategy game.
Another thing our game design teacher used to say is tactics are on the scope of a single squadron, if it's about a war then it's more of a strategy game
I guess the Fast Action Real Time Strategy acronym really does suit it best
Tactics tends to deal with smaller units. How do I take that hill?
Strategy tends to be the highest level. A strategic bomber wins a war by wiping out a city. What is our strategy for winning the war? You prepare strategies and they take time to unfold. The area in-between is Operations. Operation Overlord, D-Day, was certainly bigger than taking a beach, but smaller than winning even a country.
The RTS genre itself is rarely, rarely strategic. If you can't end the war in the game it probably isn't strategic
@@Pangora2 well yeah that's in real life but in the scope of a game if you can break another player's resource generation or army production (or anything usually referred to as macro) that's purely strategy and the game is no longer just about tactics.
I could see the argument for campaigns but imo multiplayer games are full fledged wars given that you have starting resources, you have bases which you can lose tactically but losing them all is similar to losing the war (and that's how you lose the game).
The very fact that people GG and leave in StarCraft for instance is a proof that even though they might have won a tactical encounter they could have lost the war and would rather leave
Another example of a purely strategic concept is build orders, they can affect tactical encounters early on but it doesn't matter if the macro ends up too lacking or the tactical wins are not decisive enough. So you could still lose the war (the game)
The game is an absolute blast to play! The deck building is to interesting and fun. Every day I play, I find a fun new build to try
Thanks for the review! ^^
CnC4 was really ahead of its time, I guess……………
Yeah, everyone's favorite CnC... 😔
This game really reminds me of Marine Arena or Footman Frenzy in a charming way. I like it! Super fast paced
Commentary was great U!
Game looks fun. Looking forward to seeing more units.
Looks like a lot of fun! Like all these new games it's really lacking that sweet "punch" Starcraft has with it's incredible animations and sound effects, but I'm sure that'll improve with time
I love the phrase, "let me explain you".
Very excited for this game. Being able to play shorter games works way better for my schedule.
Who was at the door?
Hadn't heard of this before but it looked very interesting. Reminded me of clash royale as an RTS which I think has a lot of potential.
For those that played it. How much of a factor is your deck composition? Can you enter a game, and essentially "lose" just because of how bad your deck is?
honestly it was pretty fun to watch, cool game!
The unit movement just looks like that of Gates of Pyre which I've been playing for a while now
i like slow rts games, such as sins of a solar empire.
battle aces could also be fun and more comfy for some when played at half or quarter speed.
I am really excited about this game!
Seems more focused in taking/destroying bases than the unit combat.
That's every RTS game?
This actually looks pretty good, they are clearly focusing on multi player game play over anything else.
This is a really cool game! Maybe they will actually release it. And uthermal can win big money :)
this reminds me a lot of broodwars golems UMS in some ways
Yeah, Golems, there was another one where you'd constantly have units spawning and you'd fight in the middle, but I can't remember the name of it, I think it was like HELL or something in all caps.
Battle Aces definitely looks promising, but after trying out Gates of Pyre, I feel it might be the one to set the bar for modern RTS games.
This looks quite fun, very unique playstyle.
nice mammoth display
kinda reinforces my idea to have them be the frontal support units for mortars and heavy hunters (think SC goliath of the latter) instead of king crabs or crusaders
David Kim said this game is for people new to RTS, yet people who been playing RTS for years find this game Extremely Fast Pace and intence! Certainly not for noobs!
i think a big factor of this game that people seem to be missing is how short not only the games are, but the sessions of play. you can hop into this game for 20 minutes and knock out a few games, then go do something else. it’s not a game you play for 3 hours straight.
This game look neat. Beginner friendly too. I’ve always wanted to get into StarCraft, but just too late you know
It's not too late to play Star Craft. It's not the hey day but sill many games at all levels.
@@gabrielpowers766 well, to be more honest. I did put in 5 hours with a buddy, but he quit because I beat his roach rushes with skytoss. And not nearly as fun without a buddy. He got all mad too, I’m like why you cheesing me when we literally just started learning lol
@@jankzgsoldier9396 2v2 is very good to play with friends while they learn.
Really cool, and looks like something I could enjoy even though SC is too much for me to handle.
Thanks for the video and changing the game to "change a pace". My observation for now: Really simpliefied, which allows you to focus on micro. I don't like you knowing the opponents deck and fog of war is too visually distracting.
This is by far my favorite representation of fog of war yet!
Mehhh ... Might be awesome in a few yrs. Still entertaining to watch the uT strats/tactics/maneuvers on it though. =))
I've had a great time with this game so far.
Well, i can guarantee you that this game will be pretty big, maybe bigger than SC2 in long-term. It's very simple, 95% of gameplay is action while SC2 is like 3-10% usually. Matches are fast, gameplay is smooth. This is game not only for RTS fans, it's just better. People currently likes this a lot, there is some crying idiots, but they has always problems about everything. So solid start, for sure one of the upcoming bigger titles.
It's also much better for e-sport than SC2. You know what is going on from first game, you dont need to even play this. Everything is simple and looks great, it's just better for watching than SC2. SC2 is pretty fun to watch too, but there is like 6-7 minutes of 0 action and just base building same thing over and over, while most of the people dont even understand what are they doing.
And for those people who thinks there is no depth - imagine 0 depth game when in the game will be +100 unique units, infinite amount of decks and so on, it's same thing as LOL. LOL is simple in concept but because you have 160 characters and tons of items game is complicated af. This game has no bigger problems, it's just simple and good idea. It's not perfect, but nothing really is.
This looks alot more managable then RTS ladder which i just get panic attacks from how much i need to do and micro but also macro at the same time
still though i have single brain for micro where i can only control 1 unit to the better preformance so idk, but it looks quite interesting
Remember when fidget spinners were popular Pepperidge farm remembers
I want the opposite of this, this is about being quick and precise micro, I want an rts where slow methodical thinking matters more than good movement and precision
Have you considered turn based strategy games?
Google Songs of Silence, you won't regret it. Fantastic strategy game for the thinker
total war or Warno might be more up your alley then
@@brandonsaffell4100 I'm playing them too but I do enjoy real time as well, just not when it's so fast paced, I'm more for casual level aoe2 than any level of sc2 if that describes it well
@@Corusame it has been gathering dust in my steam wishlist, I should probably prioritise it more!
What a fun game to watch!
As a wc3 player, I can say it is just too simple for me... Idk, just doesn't appeal to me personally. I get LoL and other games are "amazing" and "easy" for everyone. But the VG industry really is dry IMO, hope to see a good RTS game like zero space.
This is exactly the kind of game I would enjoy watching, but probably never play. For better or worse.
You should also check out sanctuary shattered sun once it gets closer to release.
Attack of the fidget spinners
Looks fun. Love micro, dont love base management.
Very curious if this will have mainstream appeal and break out of the small RTS circles.
I dislike watching fast games. Cheesing in SC2 is really boring to watch.
Looks interesting 😊
This game looks really cool
Ehhh... I don't really like the way that this feels super streamlined and "dumbed down," like a mobile port. I'm sure it's fun in its own way but I don't think it has a lot of staying power.
I don't even play starcraft but I watch uThermal and even I can tell he's just sitting around doing nothing, the real actions per minute is like, 25, maybe he's clicking around while talking but it's just an auto battler where your choice of units is what drives the game, along with some minor amount of positioning and splitting of units.
What I'm curious to see is how the extra APM will get used since there's no macro
As a classic RTS (C&C, SC2, WC3) fan this doesn't appeal to me at all. I love those games but on a more casual level. This game is more 'casual' in design on the surface but the fast pace of combat means it demands all the CPM and micro skills in combat that is a barrier to RTS without the fun of base building stuff (which yes, I find that fun). You also lose out on the campaign and excellent mission design.
I think where this game shines is in Esports / Twitch potential. The minimap showing strategies and expansions makes this more interesting to watch casually to me than a SC game. I'm more in the loop as a non-hardcore viewer even if I can't follow everything. Its a better viewing experience. Maybe this finds a home or even dominates in that regard over time.
This game has potential for sure and I want it to succeed...its just not for me.
Looks way better than stormgate
My problem with this is that it seems really really basic. It's like a modern browser game rather than a full standalone title. I can't imagine any kind of story, single-player or interesting vs AI modes, so there goes a large part of the RTS audience.
I guess the best thing I can compare it with is something like DOTA or Lol, but no heroes, no creeps and you control the units. But aren't the heroes the main draw of those games? I remember there being plenty of "choose your units and battle it out" custom maps (kinda similar to this) in WC3, and none of those caught on like DOTA.
The pace is really fast too, so you get to quickly explore the available strategy options and the meta will settle quickly, after which you're left only with improving your timings and unit control, so I wonder about the game's longevity.
pretty good looking ngl
Glorified mobile game where one robotic indistinguishable blob fights against another indistinguishable robotic blob.
its kinda like a UMS in broodwar, but expanded a little
Please make a Beyond All Reason video!
Hype. Can't wait to try this.
Fun seeing more rts games but I'm not a fan of how fast paced it is. This game makes it hard to become invested in whatever you're doing since there's a timer. Also, I like macroing and building static defense as much as I like the action, but macroing/base defense isn't important in this game.
its very important in my experience, the battles will be won or lost on eco, having an extra base on your opponent and holding let me get a bunch of units on them, plus my cheesy strats get crushed against a heavy defense. akin to holding against a Zergling rush, once they stop my early pressure im in big trouble if i didn't get enough damage off
Almlst feels like sc2 dlc which helps you learn microing, but fun nonetheless. Too fast paced for me. Sc2 as well but there at least you have the scouting aspect and woreying abput prosuction buildings and you can do amazing things with workers.
I really dont see a better rts than sc2 oming out anytime soon.
2015 mobile game vibes
Really does. Seems like a fun idea, but needs a slightly bigger scope and art change to break out of the mobile mold.
Was gonna say if I could play this on my phone this would be an amazing looking game
It actually looks great when you're playing it. The visuals are super crisp.
Honestly, the longer you look at it, the better it looks. The units have an insane amount of personality
Not a good vibe for sure. If you really want to ditch the base building with just relatively casual small armies jostling it out with composition being decisive factor, just play Command&Conquer 4 which despite the moderate age still looks gorgeous with love to damage feedback/destruction to every single non-light unit, with damage types (even projectiles themselves feedback when they're the correct counter) and unit upgrades. Especially compared to... whatever bland-looking battles we see in the video, with dead units just disappearing in a puff of smoke, which are all just in big ol' clumps, meanwhile Beyond All Reason (completely free to play) allows spacing, fanning, line, dispersing and whatnot with a single flick of the mouse to have units battle it out with a resemblance of strategy and corresponding unit features. Again, totally agree on mobile game feel of this bland game in the video, I'd much prefer see him play C&C4 instead back when the video was recorded.
Battle Aces isn't really an RTS, it's more of a RTT (real time tactics). So no, I don't think it's what RTS needs, because it's targeting a different niche. I also don't like how the result of the game could be determined by your unit loadout before it even starts. If your opponent happens to picks a unit that you have no counter to, you're screwed.
rtt would be games like Mechcommander, you control like 5 or less units with specific weapons or abilites
battle aces is a rts, company of heroes and dawn of war 2 are rts ...
idk, for me it looks like C&C4, no base building, just building units and attack. will probably get boring quickly
It's hella addictive
You should check Earth 2140 - 2160 its close to deck here
The Antimechabellum
This looks like starcraft if it was even faster, and with dead simple macro
Battle Aces looks like a Custom mini game not an actually full RTS game. It might be fun for a couple of hours but not something to invest into masters for years of your life.
it looks really dope, I hope it is actually fun to play
I have a feeling that there is less and less strategy in modern RTS. Without scouting, without building a logistic its only unit movement left. Like in micro tutorial in SC2.
David Kim is a huge red flag.
Doesn't feel like an RTS. It's like a mashup of MOBA with turn-based tactics?
From a business perspective the total lack of personality is a big issue IMO. I hope it's successful as the core gameplay looks great, but I expect a lot of people will just find it bland regardless of how good the gameplay is.
The issue is it takes absolutely forever to unlock units, when they should be free from the start. Game is dead on release because of this.
isnt that the point of tech?! so you unlock units as you get the requirement.
who rang the door bell?
I like it
Hahaha.... amazing!
Compared to StarCraft it’s like comparing Lord Of The Rings to Rings of Power….
thats pretty interesting
No, SC3 is what it would need. But rather not by current blizzard