Nah, your analysis is bs. I’m right and you’re wrong. GG.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.YTdaDEVIL wrote: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.OneCleverTurtle wrote: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!give a reason or you will continue to be mocked.YTdaDEVIL wrote:It was better when it was tied to reactors.
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.
Why was Power ever switched from the First Game