Forums / Games / Halo Wars 2

How does HW2 stack up against HW1?

OP MadPolarBear94

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 2
  4. ...
  5. 3
Hi all,

I am considering getting Halo Was 2 soon. I am wondering if there are any other Halo Wars 1 vets out there that can tell me how Halo Wars 2 stacks up against the original? My Dad and I got to General in HW1 years ago and it was one of his favourite games so I am considering purchasing Halo Wars 2 for him as a gift.

The original demo and Blitz demo did not give me much hope for the game. Now that the game has been out for a while and multiple patches have been released, how is the gameplay? Would someone who loved the simplicity of HW1 enjoy HW2? He primarily played Skirmish and I was wondering what the equivalent mode is in HW2?

I apologise for the large number of questions, I had high hopes for the game initially, which the demo's did disappoint me with but I recognise they were just demo's and the final game could be far different.

Thanks in advance.
Its very fun and much better in alot of ways than halo wars 1. That said dont expect much help in terms of support because they take forever to get back to you if they do at all. I would honestly wait until they fix the game with a couple more patches. There was a bug that wouldnt let people install the dlc just because they were members of the Xbox Insider Program which is rediculous.
A lot of unit and character variety just not a lot of map variety.
They are two completely different Rts games but you have to play hw2 to really know. It's a matter of opinion.
Only thing HW1 has on HW2 is maps. Besides that HW2 is superior
Hi all,

I am considering getting Halo Was 2 soon. I am wondering if there are any other Halo Wars 1 vets out there that can tell me how Halo Wars 2 stacks up against the original? My Dad and I got to General in HW1 years ago and it was one of his favourite games so I am considering purchasing Halo Wars 2 for him as a gift.

The original demo and Blitz demo did not give me much hope for the game. Now that the game has been out for a while and multiple patches have been released, how is the gameplay? Would someone who loved the simplicity of HW1 enjoy HW2? He primarily played Skirmish and I was wondering what the equivalent mode is in HW2?

I apologise for the large number of questions, I had high hopes for the game initially, which the demo's did disappoint me with but I recognise they were just demo's and the final game could be far different.

Thanks in advance.
In terms of maps hw1 is far ahead of hw2.Unit diversity goes to hw2 and campaign Imo goes to hw1.
HW1 is a better game than HW2. The map variety makes for different styles of play and forces you to change up builds. HW2 is a game dominated by leader powers with units that shoot potato guns and turrets that clean house. The right trigger does not work in HW2 which prevents skilled play and micro and pushes the game more towards an all units warrior play style. Because units don't do building damage, it is often fruitless to split off units to attack a far mini base. The lack of a disruption bomb option forces you to eat every and all enemy leader powers with little to no counter play depending on your leader. If you find any sort of technique that rewards skill you can be sure it will be nerfed out of the game in the next patch as the aim is to bring skilled players down to make everyone feel better about themselves. (I know this sounds harsh, I'm just a bit salty from these new balance notes, that being said I can provide specific examples for everything I've said here)
HW1 is a better game than HW2. The map variety makes for different styles of play and forces you to change up builds. HW2 is a game dominated by leader powers with units that shoot potato guns and turrets that clean house. The right trigger does not work in HW2 which prevents skilled play and micro and pushes the game more towards an all units warrior play style. Because units don't do building damage, it is often fruitless to split off units to attack a far mini base. The lack of a disruption bomb option forces you to eat every and all enemy leader powers with little to no counter play depending on your leader. If you find any sort of technique that rewards skill you can be sure it will be nerfed out of the game in the next patch as the aim is to bring skilled players down to make everyone feel better about themselves. (I know this sounds harsh, I'm just a bit salty from these new balance notes, that being said I can provide specific examples for everything I've said here)
I do agree with a lot that you said, including the overwhelming leader powers in hw2. But there is still a significant skill gap in hw2; a highly skilled player will always win a mediocre player. The balance has been quite tough, maybe they will get it right eventually.
Thanks for the replies so far everyone.

Is the game easy to pickup? I think that’s part of the reason why he loved HW1 so much because it was easy to play but took time to master.
Halo Wars 1 is better. That said, it's a matter of opinion in the end even if I can't comprehend why people like 2 more.
HW1 is a better game than HW2. The map variety makes for different styles of play and forces you to change up builds. HW2 is a game dominated by leader powers with units that shoot potato guns and turrets that clean house. The right trigger does not work in HW2 which prevents skilled play and micro and pushes the game more towards an all units warrior play style. Because units don't do building damage, it is often fruitless to split off units to attack a far mini base. The lack of a disruption bomb option forces you to eat every and all enemy leader powers with little to no counter play depending on your leader. If you find any sort of technique that rewards skill you can be sure it will be nerfed out of the game in the next patch as the aim is to bring skilled players down to make everyone feel better about themselves. (I know this sounds harsh, I'm just a bit salty from these new balance notes, that being said I can provide specific examples for everything I've said here)
I agree completely about the leader power aspect. I've always believed cooldowns on leader powers need to be far greater than they are.

That said, HW1 was laughable in terms of balance. Don't get me wrong, it was a great game. But balanced? Lol. When 90% of the units in the game are useless/don't accomplish what they are supposed to, there is a problem. Scorpions? Sweet. I'll make Hunters aaaaaaaaaand canny shelled to all hell. That's even without using the canny glitch which was NEVER patched. It wasn't like BXB/BXR from Halo 2. It was just easy to pull off.

Get to PT tanks and you win. More or less.

Map diversity was better but in of itself presented balance issues which were never addressed. Cutter was better on maps with open expos and this was too much of an objective advantage over others. Anders and Forge had their place as well.

Don't get me wrong, HW1 was and is great. But I'm not so readily to dismiss the problems it had to say it was better than the 2nd.
HW1 is a better game than HW2. The map variety makes for different styles of play and forces you to change up builds. HW2 is a game dominated by leader powers with units that shoot potato guns and turrets that clean house. The right trigger does not work in HW2 which prevents skilled play and micro and pushes the game more towards an all units warrior play style. Because units don't do building damage, it is often fruitless to split off units to attack a far mini base. The lack of a disruption bomb option forces you to eat every and all enemy leader powers with little to no counter play depending on your leader. If you find any sort of technique that rewards skill you can be sure it will be nerfed out of the game in the next patch as the aim is to bring skilled players down to make everyone feel better about themselves. (I know this sounds harsh, I'm just a bit salty from these new balance notes, that being said I can provide specific examples for everything I've said here)
I agree completely about the leader power aspect. I've always believed cooldowns on leader powers need to be far greater than they are.

That said, HW1 was laughable in terms of balance. Don't get me wrong, it was a great game. But balanced? Lol. When 90% of the units in the game are useless/don't accomplish what they are supposed to, there is a problem. Scorpions? Sweet. I'll make Hunters aaaaaaaaaand canny shelled to all hell. That's even without using the canny glitch which was NEVER patched. It wasn't like BXB/BXR from Halo 2. It was just easy to pull off.

Get to PT tanks and you win. More or less.

Map diversity was better but in of itself presented balance issues which were never addressed. Cutter was better on maps with open expos and this was too much of an objective advantage over others. Anders and Forge had their place as well.

Don't get me wrong, HW1 was and is great. But I'm not so readily to dismiss the problems it had to say it was better than the 2nd.
I agree with you on PT tanks being powerful, but not 90% of units were useless! PT tanks are counterable with air or well placed cobras. It wasn't about leader powers, more about the unit placement and strategy. Halo wars 2 is as well for sure, but there's a lot of reliable leader powers to stop rushes or to destroy armies in general. That being said I am having loads of fun with Halo wars 2.
I agree completely about the leader power aspect. I've always believed cooldowns on leader powers need to be far greater than they are.

That said, HW1 was laughable in terms of balance. Don't get me wrong, it was a great game. But balanced? Lol. When 90% of the units in the game are useless/don't accomplish what they are supposed to, there is a problem. Scorpions? Sweet. I'll make Hunters aaaaaaaaaand canny shelled to all hell. That's even without using the canny glitch which was NEVER patched. It wasn't like BXB/BXR from Halo 2. It was just easy to pull off.

Get to PT tanks and you win. More or less.

Map diversity was better but in of itself presented balance issues which were never addressed. Cutter was better on maps with open expos and this was too much of an objective advantage over others. Anders and Forge had their place as well.

Don't get me wrong, HW1 was and is great. But I'm not so readily to dismiss the problems it had to say it was better than the 2nd.
Don't go Hunters against tanks lol. Go banshees. Tanks aren't that great, even with PT. Most players can outmaneuver them ez.

The way I see balance in HW 1 is that some leaders are better at some things than others. Even if Cutter is better at 2s (debatable) both Anders and Forge are better than him in 1s.

Halo Wars has balance problems, but they're not as bad as the problems this game has.
I agree completely about the leader power aspect. I've always believed cooldowns on leader powers need to be far greater than they are.

That said, HW1 was laughable in terms of balance. Don't get me wrong, it was a great game. But balanced? Lol. When 90% of the units in the game are useless/don't accomplish what they are supposed to, there is a problem. Scorpions? Sweet. I'll make Hunters aaaaaaaaaand canny shelled to all hell. That's even without using the canny glitch which was NEVER patched. It wasn't like BXB/BXR from Halo 2. It was just easy to pull off.

Get to PT tanks and you win. More or less.

Map diversity was better but in of itself presented balance issues which were never addressed. Cutter was better on maps with open expos and this was too much of an objective advantage over others. Anders and Forge had their place as well.

Don't get me wrong, HW1 was and is great. But I'm not so readily to dismiss the problems it had to say it was better than the 2nd.
Don't go Hunters against tanks lol. Go banshees. Tanks aren't that great, even with PT. Most players can outmaneuver them ez.

The way I see balance in HW 1 is that some leaders are better at some things than others. Even if Cutter is better at 2s (debatable) both Anders and Forge are better than him in 1s.

Halo Wars has balance problems, but they're not as bad as the problems this game has.
I know. My point wasn't to say that I built Hunters against tanks. I'm saying that they are supposed to counter vehicles and are absolute -Yoink- at doing so. Tanks weren't great in HW1? Lol wat.
HW1 is a better game than HW2. The map variety makes for different styles of play and forces you to change up builds. HW2 is a game dominated by leader powers with units that shoot potato guns and turrets that clean house. The right trigger does not work in HW2 which prevents skilled play and micro and pushes the game more towards an all units warrior play style. Because units don't do building damage, it is often fruitless to split off units to attack a far mini base. The lack of a disruption bomb option forces you to eat every and all enemy leader powers with little to no counter play depending on your leader. If you find any sort of technique that rewards skill you can be sure it will be nerfed out of the game in the next patch as the aim is to bring skilled players down to make everyone feel better about themselves. (I know this sounds harsh, I'm just a bit salty from these new balance notes, that being said I can provide specific examples for everything I've said here)
I agree completely about the leader power aspect. I've always believed cooldowns on leader powers need to be far greater than they are.

That said, HW1 was laughable in terms of balance. Don't get me wrong, it was a great game. But balanced? Lol. When 90% of the units in the game are useless/don't accomplish what they are supposed to, there is a problem. Scorpions? Sweet. I'll make Hunters aaaaaaaaaand canny shelled to all hell. That's even without using the canny glitch which was NEVER patched. It wasn't like BXB/BXR from Halo 2. It was just easy to pull off.

Get to PT tanks and you win. More or less.

Map diversity was better but in of itself presented balance issues which were never addressed. Cutter was better on maps with open expos and this was too much of an objective advantage over others. Anders and Forge had their place as well.

Don't get me wrong, HW1 was and is great. But I'm not so readily to dismiss the problems it had to say it was better than the 2nd.
I agree with you on PT tanks being powerful, but not 90% of units were useless! PT tanks are counterable with air or well placed cobras. It wasn't about leader powers, more about the unit placement and strategy. Halo wars 2 is as well for sure, but there's a lot of reliable leader powers to stop rushes or to destroy armies in general. That being said I am having loads of fun with Halo wars 2.
Cobras are tech level 3 and canny shells is tech 2. Tanks > whatever else you wanted to make.
Don't go Hunters against tanks lol. Go banshees. Tanks aren't that great, even with PT. Most players can outmaneuver them ez.

The way I see balance in HW 1 is that some leaders are better at some things than others. Even if Cutter is better at 2s (debatable) both Anders and Forge are better than him in 1s.

Halo Wars has balance problems, but they're not as bad as the problems this game has.
I know. My point wasn't to say that I built Hunters against tanks. I'm saying that they are supposed to counter vehicles and are absolute -Yoink- at doing so. Tanks weren't great in HW1? Lol wat.
Oh, you can certainly use Hunters if you want to, but Banshees yield better results. Why does is matter that Hunters aren't great if there's a substitute that works just fine?

Tanks are slow. Hogs are fast. Tanks lose to air. Hogs beat air. Tanks require a depot. Hogs can be built from the base. Tank micro is hard. Hog micro is easy. ...What I'm saying is that tanks are completely overshadowed.
Don't go Hunters against tanks lol. Go banshees. Tanks aren't that great, even with PT. Most players can outmaneuver them ez.

The way I see balance in HW 1 is that some leaders are better at some things than others. Even if Cutter is better at 2s (debatable) both Anders and Forge are better than him in 1s.

Halo Wars has balance problems, but they're not as bad as the problems this game has.
I know. My point wasn't to say that I built Hunters against tanks. I'm saying that they are supposed to counter vehicles and are absolute -Yoink- at doing so. Tanks weren't great in HW1? Lol wat.
Oh, you can certainly use Hunters if you want to, but Banshees yield better results. Why does is matter that Hunters aren't great if there's a substitute that works just fine?

Tanks are slow. Hogs are fast. Tanks lose to air. Hogs beat air. Tanks require a depot. Hogs can be built from the base. Tank micro is hard. Hog micro is easy. ...What I'm saying is that tanks are completely overshadowed.
Uh. Hogs did nothing to tanks. Gauss hogs were decent but by then the person going tanks should be looking to get pt.

Not to sound mean but I am unsure why I am explaining how the balance of HW1 was atrocious.
Don't go Hunters against tanks lol. Go banshees. Tanks aren't that great, even with PT. Most players can outmaneuver them ez.

The way I see balance in HW 1 is that some leaders are better at some things than others. Even if Cutter is better at 2s (debatable) both Anders and Forge are better than him in 1s.

Halo Wars has balance problems, but they're not as bad as the problems this game has.
Oh, you can certainly use Hunters if you want to, but Banshees yield better results. Why does is matter that Hunters aren't great if there's a substitute that works just fine?

Tanks are slow. Hogs are fast. Tanks lose to air. Hogs beat air. Tanks require a depot. Hogs can be built from the base. Tank micro is hard. Hog micro is easy. ...What I'm saying is that tanks are completely overshadowed.
Uh. Hogs did nothing to tanks. Gauss hogs were decent but by then the person going tanks should be looking to get pt.

Not to sound mean but I am unsure why I am explaining how the balance of HW1 was atrocious.
Hogs won't let tanks get up. 2nd reactor on station = gren which = depot denied which = no tanks.

If you think that balance was that bad, you don't understand the balance.
Don't go Hunters against tanks lol. Go banshees. Tanks aren't that great, even with PT. Most players can outmaneuver them ez.

The way I see balance in HW 1 is that some leaders are better at some things than others. Even if Cutter is better at 2s (debatable) both Anders and Forge are better than him in 1s.

Halo Wars has balance problems, but they're not as bad as the problems this game has.
Oh, you can certainly use Hunters if you want to, but Banshees yield better results. Why does is matter that Hunters aren't great if there's a substitute that works just fine?

Tanks are slow. Hogs are fast. Tanks lose to air. Hogs beat air. Tanks require a depot. Hogs can be built from the base. Tank micro is hard. Hog micro is easy. ...What I'm saying is that tanks are completely overshadowed.
Uh. Hogs did nothing to tanks. Gauss hogs were decent but by then the person going tanks should be looking to get pt.

Not to sound mean but I am unsure why I am explaining how the balance of HW1 was atrocious.
Hogs won't let tanks get up. 2nd reactor on station = gren which = depot denied which = no tanks.

If you think that balance was that bad, you don't understand the balance.
You: Don't go the unit that's supposed to hard counter tanks! They don't work!
Also you: If you think the balance was bad, you don't understand balance.

K.
Canny was tech level three, cobras really were good to stop tanks. Hunters were able to as well. They weren't amazing, but they could stop tanks and destroy other vehicles.
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 2
  4. ...
  5. 3