Forums / Games / Halo Wars Series

Why was Power ever switched from the First Game

OP YTdaDEVIL

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. ...
  4. 2
It makes no sense to have power as a continually accumulating resource. I much preferred the first halo wars when all you had to do is build 4 rectors and your supplies were used for units and upgrades. Why was this changed? Do people actually enjoy this better? It just makes the game more complicated for no good reason and if you don’t have any reactors, why would I have any power? IE, if all my bases gets destroyed and I have 1000 power in resources, how does that make sense? Yeah I get it’s a game and you could say “how does aliens with plasma lasers make sense” but you get my point.

I really dislike a lot of the unnecessary changes made between the two games. You also should have never removed the fact that for expansion bases, you had to fight off flood, or rebels, or whatever and kill them and their base before you could build on it.

i hope that if there is a Halo Wars 3 that they bring back a lot of things from the first game that made it more fun.
The two resources messed me up at first, but I quickly got used to it. I don't know if I have a preference either way. I do agree with you on the NPC bases. It was helpful for prestige, too.
YTdaDEVIL wrote:
It makes no sense to have power as a continually accumulating resource. I much preferred the first halo wars when all you had to do is build 4 rectors and your supplies were used for units and upgrades. Why was this changed? Do people actually enjoy this better? It just makes the game more complicated for no good reason and if you don’t have any reactors, why would I have any power? IE, if all my bases gets destroyed and I have 1000 power in resources, how does that make sense? Yeah I get it’s a game and you could say “how does aliens with plasma lasers make sense” but you get my point.

I really dislike a lot of the unnecessary changes made between the two games. You also should have never removed the fact that for expansion bases, you had to fight off flood, or rebels, or whatever and kill them and their base before you could build on it.

i hope that if there is a Halo Wars 3 that they bring back a lot of things from the first game that made it more fun.
Basically nothing at all about the rts part of the game actually makes sense if you think about it. You still have the static tech levels from hw1 in terms of base upgrades. Power and supply is a lot more standard for rts and means there are a lot more options. No one I know in the competitive community that played both games prefers just having supplies.
I think it had something to do with feeling both useful and yet useless at the same time. Sure, having the reactors set up so you have tech 4 at all times made sense, but once you set them up that was it. You kinda only needed them for certain situations (which you could argue the generators feel exactly the same way just drawn out) and other than that, they just existed.

I think what they were hoping for when switching to the generators for a second resource built up over time was that: if you lost your generators, you'd still be able to get things that needed that resource. Where as reactors were only needed for specific things such as certain tiers of units and their upgrades and if they were destroyed you lost tech tiers. With generators it doesn't matter if you lost them (other than the obvious loss in resources you put into it), you'd still have a tech resource to draw from to get yourself situated again. Ultimately the reactors function was moved to upgrading your base.

I personally don't care either way, the change may or may not have been necessary. The only thing that ever really bothered me about Halo Wars 1 was how slowly your supplies would flow in even with the skull on for faster supply income.
honestly I like how halo wars 2 does it, it makes it harder to get rushed early in the game
With reactors you went down in tech for losing them. In halo wars 2 your power is just decreased if you lose one. Halo wars 1 I guess was fun but from my understanding was completely imbalanced.
compared to halo wars 2 which gets closer and closer to balance with every patch

me personally I prefer generators as a resource instead of just using power
TBE Reek wrote:
With reactors you went down in tech for losing them. In halo wars 2 your power is just decreased if you lose one. Halo wars 1 I guess was fun but from my understanding was completely imbalanced.
compared to halo wars 2 which gets closer and closer to balance with every patch

me personally I prefer generators as a resource instead of just using power
It makes more sense that you went down in tech if you lost a reactor. If you have no reactors, what are you storing your power in? How is Power an accumulating resource? Makes no sense. First games system was better but I agree it could have used more balance and leaders.
YTdaDEVIL wrote:
TBE Reek wrote:
With reactors you went down in tech for losing them. In halo wars 2 your power is just decreased if you lose one. Halo wars 1 I guess was fun but from my understanding was completely imbalanced.
compared to halo wars 2 which gets closer and closer to balance with every patch

me personally I prefer generators as a resource instead of just using power
It makes more sense that you went down in tech if you lost a reactor. If you have no reactors, what are you storing your power in? How is Power an accumulating resource? Makes no sense. First games system was better but I agree it could have used more balance and leaders.
It does make sense to lose tech that puts you out of the game like what? Secondly having more leaders creates more imbalance. The first halo wars was broken there were several things that broke the game.

In irl generators can only run a certain amount of stuff there is a limit to how much a generators can out put power for certain things there is also a minimal requirement for its use.
So yea having generators as a resource makes sense. Because having generators means that you can use power unlike reactors.

where you lose tech which doesn’t make sense secondly it restricts what you can do.

what if your on one base and you lost your second base now you have to think what do I need more tech or power. Which in HW2 you keep your tech and your still able to fight and make a comeback.

reactors were the worst idea ever put into a game imo
YTdaDEVIL wrote:
TBE Reek wrote:
With reactors you went down in tech for losing them. In halo wars 2 your power is just decreased if you lose one. Halo wars 1 I guess was fun but from my understanding was completely imbalanced.
compared to halo wars 2 which gets closer and closer to balance with every patch

me personally I prefer generators as a resource instead of just using power
It makes more sense that you went down in tech if you lost a reactor. If you have no reactors, what are you storing your power in? How is Power an accumulating resource? Makes no sense. First games system was better but I agree it could have used more balance and leaders.
Most advanced societies store their excess power in battery arrays. And according to Halo Wars lore, the battery room is right down the hall from the room where the excess supplies are stored.

You are also trying to compare tech level and power. Now it is true that during the time frame of the first Halo Wars game that the two were synonymous. But over time advances in technology allowed for engineers to separate the two into what we have currently. It's really just the marvels of science
EiTeNeR wrote:
YTdaDEVIL wrote:
TBE Reek wrote:
With reactors you went down in tech for losing them. In halo wars 2 your power is just decreased if you lose one. Halo wars 1 I guess was fun but from my understanding was completely imbalanced.
compared to halo wars 2 which gets closer and closer to balance with every patch

me personally I prefer generators as a resource instead of just using power
It makes more sense that you went down in tech if you lost a reactor. If you have no reactors, what are you storing your power in? How is Power an accumulating resource? Makes no sense. First games system was better but I agree it could have used more balance and leaders.
Most advanced societies store their excess power in battery arrays. And according to Halo Wars lore, the battery room is right down the hall from the room where the excess supplies are stored.

You are also trying to compare tech level and power. Now it is true that during the time frame of the first Halo Wars game that the two were synonymous. But over time advances in technology allowed for engineers to separate the two into what we have currently. It's really just the marvels of science
Don't forget the special quantum tunnels they developed to transport the supplies and power between bases. Adapting such a thing to Power without them collapsing is truly amazing.
I agree especially with all the units i hate that the upgrades are just health and damage instead like the first one where each unit has 2 or 3 upgrades and it only affects those units that you upgraded. The perfect example are hunters in the first game they are weak without the sheild and die quickly but once theu get the sheild they're good and are tougher to kill since the upgrades do make a difference and all units had a unique upgrades to them instead of the just 1 upgrade and the health and damage. I doubt that halo was 2 can add this stuff but im hoping if they make halo wars 3 they make more like one with the upgrades to the units and the factories that you build around the main base gives it more defense so you would have to destroy those first to make the base weaker and to bring back the reactors instead of the energy resource.
I would just like to imagine how mad the casual community would be if anti air units required multiple upgrades before they were viable. And once again TECH LEVEL IS A THING IN HW2, it's tied to your base level instead of reactors but yes tech is still a thing like in HW1.
I personally love the change to tech from HW1 to 2 (I loved HW1 to death), makes the game more difficult in a good way
I would just like to imagine how mad the casual community would be if anti air units required multiple upgrades before they were viable. And once again TECH LEVEL IS A THING IN HW2, it's tied to your base level instead of reactors but yes tech is still a thing like in HW1.
It was better when it was tied to reactors.
YTdaDEVIL wrote:
I would just like to imagine how mad the casual community would be if anti air units required multiple upgrades before they were viable. And once again TECH LEVEL IS A THING IN HW2, it's tied to your base level instead of reactors but yes tech is still a thing like in HW1.
It was better when it was tied to reactors.
give a reason or you will continue to be mocked.
YTdaDEVIL wrote:
I would just like to imagine how mad the casual community would be if anti air units required multiple upgrades before they were viable. And once again TECH LEVEL IS A THING IN HW2, it's tied to your base level instead of reactors but yes tech is still a thing like in HW1.
It was better when it was tied to reactors.
give a reason or you will continue to be mocked.
This man shares my belief that rushing should be viable, and if you tie tech levels to reactors, you can keep the game in T1 (rush territory) forever! I don't see any possible problem with this, only the prospect of extreme resource denial until your opponent either loses or quits!
YTdaDEVIL wrote:
I would just like to imagine how mad the casual community would be if anti air units required multiple upgrades before they were viable. And once again TECH LEVEL IS A THING IN HW2, it's tied to your base level instead of reactors but yes tech is still a thing like in HW1.
It was better when it was tied to reactors.
give a reason or you will continue to be mocked.
Lmfao. Ive already given reasons. And if this mocking then that’s pretty sad.
YTdaDEVIL wrote:
I would just like to imagine how mad the casual community would be if anti air units required multiple upgrades before they were viable. And once again TECH LEVEL IS A THING IN HW2, it's tied to your base level instead of reactors but yes tech is still a thing like in HW1.
It was better when it was tied to reactors.
give a reason or you will continue to be mocked.
This man shares my belief that rushing should be viable, and if you tie tech levels to reactors, you can keep the game in T1 (rush territory) forever! I don't see any possible problem with this, only the prospect of extreme resource denial until your opponent either loses or quits!
It also makes it so people go for buildings on your base instead of the cheap base kill. I think halo 1 man bases were harder to kill if I remember correctly. Sure felt like it.

The reactors tying to tech provided a unique element to the game. I liked it and it made for different strategy than the game now.

I don’t care what anyone says, Halo Wars 1 was a lot more fun despite the games being longer. If they would have just added leaders and altered a few games from the first game, halo wars 2 would be a lot better than it is now.
YTdaDEVIL wrote:
YTdaDEVIL wrote:
I would just like to imagine how mad the casual community would be if anti air units required multiple upgrades before they were viable. And once again TECH LEVEL IS A THING IN HW2, it's tied to your base level instead of reactors but yes tech is still a thing like in HW1.
It was better when it was tied to reactors.
give a reason or you will continue to be mocked.
This man shares my belief that rushing should be viable, and if you tie tech levels to reactors, you can keep the game in T1 (rush territory) forever! I don't see any possible problem with this, only the prospect of extreme resource denial until your opponent either loses or quits!
It also makes it so people go for buildings on your base instead of the cheap base kill. I think halo 1 man bases were harder to kill if I remember correctly. Sure felt like it.

The reactors tying to tech provided a unique element to the game. I liked it and it made for different strategy than the game now.

I don’t care what anyone says, Halo Wars 1 was a lot more fun despite the games being longer. If they would have just added leaders and altered a few games from the first game, halo wars 2 would be a lot better than it is now.
The "realism" argument is frankly complete bs. Guess what HW1 already had the same mechanic in terms of tech as HW2 it's just that's how the covy worked they paid a one off fee and kept their tech, having tech the way it is now means that it's less of an all or nothing in hw1 it had to be very easy to get end game units e.g. tanks/air because otherwise if you lost a tech level you lost the game. The introduction of power and tech levels as separate entities adds a low more variety to the number of options you have, decreases the game over factor of losing a tech building and generally means that hw2 can have an early game whereas hw1 by necessity basically had to have you sit around doing nothing for 5 minutes.
HW2's System is better because you don't lose the match as soon as your 2 Generators or Temple were destroyed.
What I'm saying is the loss of a single building or 2 if UNSC shouldn't cripple you to the point that you probably will lose since you can no longer make units that could defend your other bases. It was worse for the Covenant since they can't build multiple Temples as a failsafe.
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. ...
  4. 2