Alpha tech demo: http://youtu.be/7Z2PAk83Ce4
This is a real-time tactics game by DigitalMindSoft meant to succeed the Men of War series. Note that they are marketing it as a real-time strategy game, but it is pure tactics (plus a direct-control mechanic for pulling off headshots, etc.). Whereas the similar-looking and more well-known game Company of Heroes is light on both tactics and strategy, the Men of War games focus entirely on micromanagement-heavy tactical depth, and it appears they plan to do the same thing with Call to Arms.
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013/01 ... l-to-arms/
RPS: Is it still using the GEM engine? Isn’t that engine getting a bit old now? How much can you actually improve on it?
Kramer: Great question and we do have a team of programmers working on a series of significant improvements to the engine. For example, we finally are adding proper multi-core support, improved netcode, competitive matchmaking, advanced shaders and greater physics support. These engine optimizations will also allow us to pump up the graphic fidelity without a drop on performance, so objects will have sixteen times the level of detail and the game world will be much more realistic. The current engine allows us to offer the unique features found in our series, but these improvements will help us match today’s visual standards.
[...]
RPS: What did you learn from Assault Squad that you have applied to Call To Arms?
Kramer: We knew Men of War was a great game, but we also knew it lacked consistency, ease of entry and overall polish. Assault Squad was about cleaning up these gameplay mechanics and making it easier for new players to get in and understand the combat. In some ways we succeeded, but this will continue to be our focus throughout the development of Call to Arms.
I think one of the more controversial changes we have made is the removal of redundant and user unfriendly units from Assault Squad. We understood that huge unit roster pools were fun, but they were very difficult for new players to understand and for us to competitively balance. As we keep our games steeped in reality, we can’t magically make some units a good choice, when they were failures in actuality. We won’t be facing these issues in Call to Arms, since we chose units and weapons by their realistic value right from the start. We retain depth through tons of variations, but new players only need to understand the very basics to play and enjoy the game. This allows us to keep the large unit rosters which people love, but make it easier for new players to understand each unit.
The steep learning curve of the Men of War series is what puts most people off, but on the flip side the game becomes most entertaining once you learned all the possibilities. We are striving for a game that guides new players through their options, but keeps it entertaining for everyone.
Based on the tech demo it seems they are also still making the graphics bland as hell. (Not to mention the title of the game... Call to Arms, Call of Duty, Medal of Honor, Men of War, Call of Honor, Medal of Duty, Men of Duty, Men of Honor. Confused now?) The physics engine looks awesome though and even cooler than it already was in the Men of War games.
No mention as far as I can tell of whether it will have a singleplayer campaign. Based on how horribly their crowd-funding is going, I'm guessing not.
