IRONHIDE COMMUNITY FORUM

Okay so I've been seeing threads of people complaining about a fair share things. The two largest complaints are the lack of enemy database thing, and the difficulty(from what I've read here, so pls go away Discord comments). SO I'm to share my opinions on these complaint and so and so fourth.

Enemy Database
So it has been stated here will not be an enemy database, which several people are upset. My takeaway is while database would be nice(especially for wiki stuff) it isn't necessary for this game genre. If you play any RTS game, you rarely get info about your troops, let alone your enemies. The fact that they have pop-ups telling us about the enemies is a luxury in of its self for this genre of game. "But how do you plan for the levels ahead of time". You don't. You plan in "Real-Time", thus the name RTS. You have to adapt to the situation in the moment, which segways into the next topic.


Difficulty
RTS games are notorious for there demand in skill level. Players have to have extraordinary micro-management skills, and reaction time. It's this reason why game in this genre are so difficult or high skill. StarCraft(1&2), Total War, Command & Conquer, Halo Wars 2(1 was easy imo), and Warcraft were all very high skill games. While IM isn't quite on that level of difficulty, it still requires these skills. You have to be able to assess your situation and adapt accordingly, which they make far easier than a normal RTS. As result if you little experience with RTS games, or don't play games that don't utilize the skill above then Yes, this game will hard for you. Personally, I only had trouble with 2 levels, The one before the Fell boss, and the Spec Ops mission with the sentry turret(Cause micro is hard).

So in conclusion while KR and IM where made by the same company, you can't really compare the games to each other. There very different gameplay-wise. KR is far more plan ahead, and make small adjustments along the way, which made the game hard for me because I fit more into the IM playstyle, which is plan in the moment, adapt to your situation. However there is on thing that both games share that eventually make the game easier, and that is Trial and Error. To anyone having trouble try different strategies or playstyles.(I will give a hint though, the Rangers paired with Diplomats are really good against the Fell, and throughout most the game)


Not to mention this the first non tower-defense game IH have done, so there are gonna be a few mistakes or quirks that we aren't going to like.
Overall I enjoy the game, but I did find it extremely easy to beat, but that's just me.
P.S Sorry for semi-douche-baggish title

Thanks for putting the effort into clearing some of this up! I have no experience in the RTS genre and consider myself a very casual gamer at best (Like, playing-Tetris-on-my-computer-when-I'm-bored level of casual) so this game will probably kick my ass several times over, then eat my corpse and spit me out and eat me again once I get to the stuff that's meant to be challenging.

not sure what RTS you play that doesn't show the stats. i honestly can't think of a single rts that i dont have access to the numbers.
maybe it's because im primarily a PC gamer

drb00t wrote:not sure what RTS you play that doesn't show the stats. i honestly can't think of a single rts that i dont have access to the numbers.

I mean tht the #'s aren't easy to find, or super important unitwise(unless they outnumber like 50 to 1)(least in StarCraft)

Wish I'd known it wasn't tower defense before I bought.
I'm bored with this chaos. Literally how I feel; sorry not sorry.

KREN wrote:Wish I'd known it wasn't tower defense before I bought.
I'm bored with this chaos. Literally how I feel; sorry not sorry.

don't feel too bad...they have already been working on the 4th kingdom rush

your original post is spot-on btw...seems like an rts with very light base building

KREN wrote:Wish I'd known it wasn't tower defense before I bought.

I mean... You could have read the description of the game...

Just letting you know, they're not called Real Time Strategy games because you have to react quickly. They're called Real Time Strategy games because they're not Turn Based, they take place in actual "real" time, and they're strategy games.

The logical result of being played in real time is having to react quickly. You're not disproving his point here.

drb00t wrote:not sure what RTS you play that doesn't show the stats. i honestly can't think of a single rts that i dont have access to the numbers.
maybe it's because im primarily a PC gamer

Company of Heroes and Dawn of War are both two of the top RTS's in the entire genre, and neither of them show any numbers regarding any of their units--they only give descriptions. You're left entirely to yourself to decide on which works well with what and why. This is despite the fact that the game has maybe 50+ units, and a ton of mechanics all interacting with each other.

One of my main gripes with the game is that it gives very little effort towards explaining many of its hidden mechanics, which is what sets it apart from the two games I mentioned above. CoH and DoW properly explained the game's mechanics: cover protects your troops, better cover means less damage, concealment lowers enemy accuracy against your troops, better concealment means they won't be seen at all, etc. Iron Marines has a whole bunch of hidden mechanics and interactions that aren't explained at all in the game, even though the players deserve to know about it.

For example, did you know that there's only one type of armor, but multiple types of damage? Ballistic deals normal damage, laser ignores all armor, explosive deals area damage but is weak to armor, melee deals bonus against everything except other melee, etc. Aside from the unreliable loading screen hints, there is literally no way for the player to learn about most of these, and they're left entirely in the dark about a whole bunch of strategic options that should be open to them. There's other examples of this, like how line of sight works against barriers, priority targeting against specific enemies, etc.

Ninja wrote:The logical result of being played in real time is having to react quickly. You're not disproving his point here.

I wasn't saying he's wrong. He's right. I was just saying that they aren't CALLED RTS's for that reason.

Juice Box wrote:Company of Heroes and Dawn of War are both two of the top RTS's in the entire genre, and neither of them show any numbers regarding any of their units

Dawn of War does show your units' average DPS, and I believe also their health, but I could be wrong about that.

@TheKingSparta:

I don't want to seem really argumentative here, but I'll post this anyway.

NastyBird339 wrote:You plan in "Real-Time", thus the name RTS. You have to adapt to the situation in the moment, which segways into the next topic.

That^ is an exact quote from the OP. Note that he didn't say that the genre was called "RTS" due to the necessity of quick adaptation, but he rather simply said that quick adaptation was an attribute of the genre.

TheKingSparta wrote:

KREN wrote:Wish I'd known it wasn't tower defense before I bought.

I mean... You could have read the description of the game...

Well yes, but I'm the epitome of a casual mobile gamer, so casual that I've never heard of RTS or real time strategy. They are words that mean nothing to me - they certainly don't signify a game classification to me.

I've heard of first person shooter and avoid those games like the plague, so that would've triggered me (and yes, I get that this isn't one of those games). But RTS meant nothing to me. Never heard of it. I just saw the words as descriptive. I mean, tower defense is real time strategy. I play it in real time. It's strategy. kwim? I don't know from gamer terminology.