Kohan II and the "traditional" RTS interface

Games
1

I finally picked up Kohan 2 after playing through the demo a bit and deciding that while the game is really “almost Kohan”, it’s still fairly fun and at LEAST has a sizable SP campaign (I’m looking at you, Dawn of War, and your 11 short-ass missions). Funny, that, because I never played the campaign in KAG (KIS’ dry campaign was enough for me) – I was strictly MP.

So I put about five hours into it over the past two days – beat the first three campaign maps and watched its WC3-inspired talking heads yammer their forgettable lines, and then jumped into a pair of multiplayer games. I whooped up on some Kohan newb, and then got steamrolled by a pair of pros in a 2v2 game.

It’s fun, but I’m really, REALLY starting to loathe the interface. It has none of the elegance or game-specific functionality of the original Kohan interface, which would work just as well and most likely BETTER than this painfully awkward take on the bog-standard RTS interface.

Let’s face it: just because people have been using it since CnC doesn’t mean it’s appropriate for every RTS, especially ones like Kohan that purport to rethink the conventions of the genre. The WBC series has rethought this interface with great results, to the point that hotkeys are no longer a necessity. (Requiring the use of hotkeys is pretty much a tacit admission that your interface has serious long-term usability issues.) Hell, I’d argue that this interface style, with its right Clump O’ Buttons ™, intrusive map, and ridiculously large unit stats display, is simply cumbersome and archaic. Most pr players rely entirely on hotkeys, so why take up valuable screen real estate with it? Kohan 2’s is uglier and more obtrusive than most, made tenable ONLY by the fact that most of the non-building hotkeys are the same as they were in KAG.

The whole K2 interface experience is RoN, Awkward Edition. The unit build buttons are ugly, pixellated messes, and it’s hard to discern which unit graphic is which without waiting for the tooltip to pop up. The right hand panel becomes a contextual mess after one level when building, and it’s difficult to quickly tell what can/can’t be built at a glance. The message to me, the player, is thus: “use the hotkeys, jerk!” Why Timegate went from the unobtrusive, perfectly tailored interface of the original to this clumsy beast is beyond me. Having now memorized every hot key I need for a Royalist Human build, I’d love the ability to simply turn it off and scale the map down to a smaller and less offensive size/layout.

There seems to have been a very concerted effort at Timegate to mimic the presentation aspects of WC3, which is kinda disturbing. The opening menu, the talking polyheads, the Clump O’ Buttons interface – it’s all superficially WC3, and it’s not good, because it lacks a lot of what REALLY made WC3’s interface work. It’s even odder given that the traditional RTS interface (big status screen, cluster of unit-specific buttons) works much better for micro intensive games that require manual spellcasting and individual unit maintenance, but seems pointlessly intrusive and ugly in a more macro-oriented game like Kohan (and even RoN).

Again, I’ll repeat it: there’s a fun game in there. I still loathe the “settlement spot” idea, since it’s obviously a concession to the game’s 3D engine, and I miss the deep terrain game of KAG enormously – ambushes with archers/goats from dense forest/jungle was part of tactical game and worked well against econ monsters like EviLore and Hitokage from GA. However, I do like the town sieges and the unit diversity of KoW, and the campaign is more interesting than the one in KIS, even though, as Geryk and Chick have remarked, Kohan seems like a game much better suited for a WBC2- or RoN-style dynamic campaign than a Warcraft-style romp through Fantasy Clicheland.

At any rate, it would be nice to see competent and creative developers like Timegate stand behind interfaces that are specifically tailored to the mechanics of the games they create, rather than opting for a inferior and wholly inappropriate “more familiar” style. I’m sure that the Timegate folks will insist that this was a nuanced decision and that the interface perfectly meshes with their vision for the game, but I ain’t buying: the results speak for themselves.

2

I think Homeworld has the best UI of any modern RTS. Dawn of War’s seems like a step backwards for Relic, but I can understand why they made the decision to go that route. Learning curve is very low when people are familiar with the style of the UI. While I loved Homeworld’s interface, I had a few friends who never got into the game because they never got the hang of how to play.

3

Looking at Homeworld and Dawn of War, a lot of things have gone downhill for Relic in the interval between those games. Homeworld had a better UI than DOW. Homeworld had the best SP campaign in any RTS, DOW barely has a SP campaign. Homeworld’s in-engine cutscenes were gorgeous, DOW’s were clunky. Credit to Relic, both had good visceral in-game action and great sound, but it still worries me to see the quality of games from a studio decline over time.

4

I picked it up too, cause im a kohan whore. No matter how much I dont like where its gone, eh, im stupid whatever. So anyway here’s my NO SPIN ZONE fair and balanced opinion.

+PLUSES THESE ARE THE GoOD THINGS+

1.) 3D has helped the single player presentation 300%

2.) Game is pretty. Units are well detailed.

3.) Single player in general is 300% better than the previous games.

4.) More scouting than I had thought, on RANDOM maps. I never play set maps so truly set settlement spots dont bother me in this area.

5.) Flanking is still somewhat useful.

6.) While combat feels less tactical, it is as detailed visually as the previous 2D entries. Not really better, but it meets KAG at the bar.

7.) At least I can still get new units from capturing shrines!

-MINUSES THESE ARE THE THINGS I DONT LIKE-

1.) I feel like im just making hordes and clicking them to hotspots, ala Warcraft/Starcraft/Total Annhilation/Dark Reign/every RTS of this nature. I feel Ground Control had more actual field tactics.

2.) Larger settlements look cool, but I dont see the purpose they serve.

3.) I enjoyed scouting for my enemies cities in previous games more than the time I spend scouting for my own cities in Kings of War

4.) Spell effects of support/heroes seems muted in comparison with the rest of the visuals in the game.

5.) Flanking may still be applicable but its nowhere near as potent as it used to be, making it less important in my eyes.

6.) Retreats are too stupid fast.

7.) Darius no longer carries two swords, just one. He also mispronounces kohan as kohen once in a while.

8.) Yes there are more units, but the sub-factions within factions have too much of their own identity to exist as say Royalists. Also the units allocated never seem like enough, or as unique from one another as in previous titles.

9.) Lack of tech hunting is sad. Researching I am so very very very very tired of.

For me its a B/B-. There’s an obvious tilt there, but my main issue these days lies with the fact that ive played this game before. Much like Warhammer released just recently, I see a game that does a great job making the motions of those who came before it, but lack the true identity to keep me playing for years to come.

Rome Total War anyone?

5

I’m going to back up the statements about the UI in Homeworld being intimidating vs the standard RTS UI. My friend tried to get me(and the rest of us at a LAN party) to play homeworld2, but the game proved to be very stilted, mainly due due to the impenetrebility of the UI. While I can understand it may have been more useful once you got the hold of it, it didn’t click ergonomically. I’ll be the first to admit that the standard RTS interface is lacking, but I can see why its laid you the way it is. At a glance information seems more logically placed, but as has been stated earlier, when it start trying to convey more information, it starts to break down.

Huong

6

Homeworld Cataclysm Interface was more streamlined than H or H2’s I felt.

7

I’m with Doug on this: I don’t like Kohan 2’s interface either. The “conventional” Warcraft-y interface is too big and cumbersome compared to KIS/KAG’s streamlined interface; and it feels like there’s a lot more wasted empty space. Worse still, it offers less info than previous games; e.g., none of the detailed unit / building / Kohan descriptions when you click on them (unless I missed something in the options screen).

Furthermore, I think having a “conventional” RTS interface will backfire; rather than easing newbies into the game by providing them with a familiar UI, they’ll be befuddled by the fact they can’t churn out units like Warcraft 3 - a game TG seems to have deliberately aped in style and UI. Just because the RTS interface standards are “familiar” doesn’t make them “optimal” - or even necessarily any good.

If TG could find a way to patch in the old interface, I’d be a much happier camper.

8

Worse still, it offers less info than previous games; e.g., none of the detailed unit / building / Kohan descriptions when you click on them (unless I missed something in the options screen)

Those icons along the top of the panel give you detailed information on each unit’s stats, special abilities, and current spell effects. Hold your cursor over them for tooltips on each one.

-Tom
9

Tom: While the info is there, the argument can easily be made that in game information was much more plentiful and easy to get to in KAG.

10

Which is kinda sad considering how much real estate they devote to that giant diamond map and the middle bit that has a talking polygon head or a bunch of status bars. There’s gotta be a better way to represent the status of the units in a company than a bunch of status bars. At the very least, getting rid of the bling bling company symbols and the portraits would free up some room for, y’know, NUMBERS THAT MATTER.

It’s like they didn’t get the vast gulf of difference between Warcraft 3 and Kohan when they designed the UI, and simply tried to stuff Kohan into it. Along the way, I guess they felt they had to fill submenus, and so we got some expensive research options that feel kinda tacked on. Man, if only they’d ripped off WBC2/3’s right-click context menus instead of stuffing EVERYTHING in the lower-right hand corner. Even worse, they couldn’t make their icons half as informative and relevant as those in WC3. FOr all WC3’s faults, its icons are fun to click – they have exciting, important looking specific images like drooling shadow monsters or orcs getting hit with lasers and they give you feedback on the status of the action. Kohan 2 just has generic, vague images, like a helmet for recruiting. Boo.

Also, Timegate should fire their icon designer. I couldn’t find the random map generator button and HAD TO READ THE DAMN MANUAL (oh, it’s that gold mountainy thingie – makes PERFECT freakin’ sense), and I still gotta squint a bit to tell the archer icon from the pikeman icon from the swordsman icon, and they’re ugly pixellated messes, to boot. At the very least, I shouldn’t have to use Tool Tips to EVER find out what a button does – they should be for detailed secondary information (y’know, TIPS), not what the fuckin’ button is.

And why do giant heads and symbols get priority over the ROUT button? It took me forever (in panic time) to find the little tattered flag and click it.

I don’t think KAG’s interface was much of an obstacle in the way Homeworld’s was, even to newbs. It really did work well – the key actions were in the lower center, along with the vital unit stats. The lower right side was reserved for rarely used options, like toggling ZoP and ZoC data, or for diplomatic stuff. There were all these nice alternate management views, like the F1 town management screen, and most of your clicks were spent managing troop movement. Best of all, there were no oddly-shaped, non-translucent maps with garish thick borders taking up a sizable portion of your screen space.

11

The hero portrait is way too big. Seeing my hero make an O face while she praises ‘the light’ is disturbing to say the least.

12

5.) Flanking may still be applicable but its nowhere near as potent as it used to be, making it less important in my eyes.

6.) Retreats are too stupid fast.

2.) Larger settlements look cool, but I dont see the purpose they serve.

I don’t like Kohan 2’s interface either.

Also, Timegate should fire their icon designer.

Which is kinda sad considering how much real estate they devote to that giant diamond map and the middle bit that has a talking polygon head or a bunch of status bars

The hero portrait is way too big.

…

Welcome to the beta forums from three months ago.

13

What’s the point? That they didn’t correct problems in the beta?

14

In full agreement about the interface issues, it’s really pretty clunky all the way around (the lack of intuitive use of right and left click in different situations is my pet peeve).

2.) Larger settlements look cool, but I dont see the purpose they serve.

Do you really not see the point of the larger settlements? The walls make for interesting chokepoints, and the general town seiges seem much more tactically deep than previous Kohan games. It adds a significant dimension to play. You may not like them, but there is a purpose.

Again, I’ll repeat it: there’s a fun game in there. I still loathe the “settlement spot” idea, since it’s obviously a concession to the game’s 3D engine

I understand this is an unwinnable debate, it seems like most of the people who played Kohan 1 a lot (I played a good bit, but it was a long time ago) hate them, so I won’t bother debating it.

However, this is the second time someone has said they did the change not for gameplay reasons (I think there are a lots of good gameplay reasons), but for the 3d engine. Can you explain why you think that’s obvious? Did someone from Timegate say that? If it’s just an assumption, why? The settlements are essentially static background, would be limited anyway by their size, and I can’t believe it’s just the unit limit. It’s not like it’s a terribly intensive game as it is.

15

Some online games do generate into horde wars of attrition. But many are decided by flanks, retreats, raids, etc. I’m not convinced that Kohan II is less tactical than Kohan 1 although maybe it is to a small degree. However, one thing that may develop as you play more is that you will develop different tactics than in Kohan 1. For example, retreats are faster which changes the tactics you need to use to follow up after battles. I have had very good success with pre-positioning reserve units along the likely path of retreat - it requires some planning and luck, but a decisive flank/pursuit is still possible.

2.) Larger settlements look cool, but I dont see the purpose they serve.

They increase the defensive value of settlements by a lot, they cause attacks to get spread out (which can create opportunities for flank attacks), archer units inside walls can hurt enemies without retaliation (until the wall is cracked), they also form a focus of battles. Rather than just wandering into the enemy as both are crossing the open field, most Kohan 2 battles involve cities. I like this change a lot.

5.) Flanking may still be applicable but its nowhere near as potent as it used to be, making it less important in my eyes.

6.) Retreats are too stupid fast.

I agree about the flanking, but I sorta flip/flop on the retreat issue. Yes they are faster which makes getting a decisive army wipeout on the other team harder. However, there are two good aspects of this: it makes for more of a back and forth game, which can be enjoyable (or can be grinding idiocy depending on the players). Also, it means I can get MY units out to safety more easily, which I enjoy. I hate losing units so preserving veteran units is great. Overall I am mixed on this change.

8.) Yes there are more units, but the sub-factions within factions have too much of their own identity to exist as say Royalists. Also the units allocated never seem like enough, or as unique from one another as in previous titles.

I don’t understand what you mean the subfaction factions? Are you saying the factions within races are lacking identity? This is true: the faction differences are less than they used to be.

On the issue of racial unit lists, yes and no. The unit selection is smaller but I am finding as I study each race that each race has units that do unique and cool things. One thing that sucks about the new interface is that you don’t get detailed info on the spells and special abilities in the unit creation screen. For example you can see that a Drauga Warmonger gives you Haste and Defensive Tactics but until you make one you can’t get the info on what those actually do. When you do, then you can see that its a pretty useful unit to add to Drauga companies.

You might find that as you play you will see more of the detailed unit info and you might find the units cooler than you thought. Or not :).

Also, if they do an expansion, theres a ton of room to add units. I have all kinds of ideas for units they could add.

For me its an overall A/A+ for multiplayer and probably a B/B- for single player.

The online play can vary greatly depending on the teams and players. Some games are nasty and short. Some are long and grinding. Some feature great teamwork. Some feature lots of crappy individualistic play. If you get into a good game with balanced teams and good teamwork, you may find that some of your issues with tactics will change. Good teamwork can make the game feel a lot better.

As to Doug’s overall issues with the interface, I do agree that the original Kohan interface was in fact better. But I understand why they wanted to go to the “conventional” interface. Also I don’t HATE it the way Doug does :). I’m sort of “meh” on the interface.

On the mini-map Doug, I make a LOT of use of the thing. I watch it for enemy and for allies. You can use the mini-map to give orders (this is a good way to make a fast retreat: you hit the R button to retreat and then click the mini-map to retreat a safe distance; you don’t have to delay while scrolling the map to a safe spot; just retreat, use minimap, and bug out ASAP: this is one reason why I have a low unit-loss % in most games). Also you can shift click on the mini-map to queue (sp?) up multiple orders.

For me the screen real estate issue is not that big a deal although I do agree that you should have the option of minimizing it.

My bottom line is that the game is likely to grow on you guys as you play it on, especially if we can get into some good game with balanced teams and good teamwork.

Look us up online.

I may start passwording my game: the password will be QT3 (case sensitive).

Dan

16

On the mini-map Doug, I make a LOT of use of the thing. I watch it for enemy and for allies. You can use the mini-map to give orders (this is a good way to make a fast retreat: you hit the R button to retreat and then click the mini-map to retreat a safe distance; you don’t have to delay while scrolling the map to a safe spot; just retreat, use minimap, and bug out ASAP: this is one reason why I have a low unit-loss % in most games). Also you can shift click on the mini-map to queue (sp?) up multiple orders.

Oh, I use it a lot: I’ve been playing RTS games for freakin’ ever and they’re the place I go for my macro orders. I just don’t get why it has to be so ugly and obtrusive (and a diamond-shape – WTF). KIS/KAG was vastly superior in that not-insignificant regard.

As I play it, I’m really inclined to agree with TheSelfishGene’s assessment in an earlier thread that Timegate doesn’t really “get” the appeal of their own series. All of the superficial Warcraft 3 styled trappings don’t enhance the game to any significant degree, and in many cases, such as the questionable interface implementation and talking heads, actually HURT it.

There’s a good game under the mess, and in some cases, such the town sieges and the race/faction design, there’s brilliance. They could have added that to the KAG mechanics, though, along with the 3D, and had a classic sequel; instead, they killed the terrain game and slapped on an inappropriately orthodox and inexpertly designed interface, taking two very large steps back.

If I were reviewing this game, it’d be a B- to KAG’s A-. Good game, loads of potential, but there’s some really misguided thinking in the top-level design.

17

However, this is the second time someone has said they did the change not for gameplay reasons (I think there are a lots of good gameplay reasons), but for the 3d engine. Can you explain why you think that’s obvious? Did someone from Timegate say that? If it’s just an assumption, why? The settlements are essentially static background, would be limited anyway by their size, and I can’t believe it’s just the unit limit. It’s not like it’s a terribly intensive game as it is.

Because you want to avoid issues of graphics object clipping or distortion, for starters. If I settle next to a mountain, the top-level part of the rendering engine has to figure out where to put the walls/buildings and how to lay them out in a way that looks natural. And if I settle near a lake or a major terrain feature – how is the engine supposed to render walls and outlier buildings, then? It’s much easier to do outposts/forts, because they’re a single self-contained polygonal object.

Since the buildings and walls are essential to the gameplay’s siege mechanics and economic model, they can’t remove them and go with the old-school “single city graphic” style from KAG (albeit in 3D). Hence, the idea of settlement spots – areas that have been “sanitized” for the dynamic rendering of building and wall collections that represent cities.

It’s yuck, of course. A good settlement strategy that takes advantage of terrain features was one of the really fun bits of KAG strategy. The balance between timely settlement and looking for the perfect digs (next to a mountain or near a choke point on the macro-level; surrounded by forest/jungle on the micro) could make all the difference in the early-to-mid game. It’s absence is sorely missed, especially since this approach really makes you dependent on a good hand from the random map generator.

18

I appreciate the balanced response sharpe. Its clear Kohan 2 is fun, but its not the Kohan I remember. If I can get over this fact and play it alongside KAG I shouldnt have a problem.

Its one of those sequels that could have been but wasn’t things. As for the unique abilities of units making the limited number acceptable, I cant totally agree. My stance is that since the abilities are ‘automatic’, I dont get any joy out of using said units.

I was never a stat combo cruncher in kag either, I was pure field tactics. Making something out of nothing. Didnt always win games but kept things interesting. So the whole finding unit combinations thing was never my bread and butter anyway.

My stance on the statement above about factions (vague anyway) is as so: I want to pick royalists, I do, but I have to pick someone in royalists, who dont seem like royalists. I mean they get the heroes, but in KAG I could use all these races together under the royalist banner, in KoW the opportunity for multi-racial actions under one factions banner are a lot more limited and thats disappointing to me.

19

I also miss the old-school ZoP representation. Now, you don’t know you’re near a settlement until you see a building. In KAG, you knew you were near an enemy when you saw the ZoP, which made sense – more people around, there must be a town nearby, most likely in the center of it. It was a cool abstraction that represented a real scouting consideration.

20

the whole zone thing was awesome, when I first started playing kag I never had them on, but I found with all my zones on planning ambushes and sneaking around was a hell of a lot easier