Iron Harvest

By the screenshots it appears to have the angle of view similar to coh2 as well. I hope this whole hype is met with a good online multiplayer mode. I know it's asking too much but it would be wonderful to see such a RTS with a Ranking system similar to Starcraft 2.

Pillars of Eternity was on kickstarter and it's the best game in the isometric RPG genre since Baldur's Gate II. Bigger studio, sure, but nothing wrong with kickstarter.

Iron Harvest will have "fully implemented and proper cover mechanics"!

See following Youtube video (is mentioned at 3:35):
https://youtu.be/Bsaj8xAfxQM?t=3m35s

Done

Did some research and im sure the publisher will be THQ Nordic. so i think this game might actually be good. since the devs say coh and mow inspired them aswell.

THQ Nordic is also releasing a new game called The Guild 3 , it's really interesting and im super hyped about it .
ive been following these devs (THQ Nordic) for over a year now and i can tell you that even though they they delayed release for over a year now (game was playable at e3 2016) they work hard and listen to community, one of them devs replies to all questions on steam forums.
so yeah any game from them should be good

I love how balanced a distribution there is for Many units v few specialists.

Maybe Relic should had made the same kind of survey before they launched DAW3...

This is very encouraging. I've definitely got my eyes on this game.

'too much micro-management' hope that isn't taken as 'people want the game to happen for them'

Even so I'm hoping i will get into the testing phase

'too much micro-management' hope that isn't taken as 'people want the game to happen for them'

Even so I'm hoping i will get into the testing phase

Personally, I took to CoH because microing worker units was weird and not very fun to me.

Personally, I took to CoH because microing worker units was weird and not very fun to me.

I agree, i dont want to have too much boring economic or building micro but i also dont want them to simplify combat micro.

I agree, i dont want to have too much boring economic or building micro but i also dont want them to simplify combat micro.

+1

The only thing I liked about Starcraft multiplayer was raiding the enemy workers though. That was fun.

Combat micro is great though.

I enjoyed the fact that the majority of people want a more deep tactic than fast action (I myself voted all the way for deep tactic). It's very encouraging, indeed! The old days of in-depth planning, the days before WFA arrived... I want those experience again... Can't wait for the testing phase...

I recently acquired and played the board game this was based off of (Scythe). The A E S T H E T I C was amazing and the board game itself was fantastic. Let's just hope that the RTS lives up to Scythe's name because I can't wait for something else to throw money at.

I enjoyed the fact that the majority of people want a more deep tactic than fast action (I myself voted all the way for deep tactic). It's very encouraging, indeed! The old days of in-depth planning, the days before WFA arrived... I want those experience again... Can't wait for the testing phase...

I am a bit afraid that people have some kind of disagreement about the term 'deep tactic'. You mentioned vCoH2 as it surely had more tactics involved than the current meta. But with 'deep tactics' I think about stuff like Iron Hearts 4 which is probably a really cool game but I simply am too stupid to play it because there are so many possibilities that you have to learn the game for 10-20 hours in order to play it.

This would scare of a lot of people probably, including me.

Let's be real - Most of us here just want some kind of CoH3 with the cover mechanics, good balance, good engine and the 'original CoH2 mechanics' including cover, true sight, blizzards (just kidding), suppression, buildings and so on.

I also am open for new stuff which Iron Harvest will deliver without a doubt. But to be honest, give me a cover mechanic and 'multiple soldier squads' and I am pretty much content.

Personally, I took to CoH because microing worker units was weird and not very fun to me.

+1

Less artificial micro is always good (workers, moving with archery units like mad to get hit´n´run tactics and so on)

I am a bit afraid that people have some kind of disagreement about the term 'deep tactic'. You mentioned vCoH2 as it surely had more tactics involved than the current meta. But with 'deep tactics' I think about stuff like Iron Hearts 4 which is probably a really cool game but I simply am too stupid to play it because there are so many possibilities that you have to learn the game for 10-20 hours in order to play it.

This would scare of a lot of people probably, including me.

The start-off point doesn't have to be straight on "deep tactic" since it's quite depends on players, like you said, but as long as it doesn't fall into the "power creep" mistake that Relic made with WFA and Brits, things would be fine, I think.

The term "deep tactic" would be a little bit out of the bracket here, but imagine combat elements being slower pace .Not extremely slow, but if you take the CoH2 right now as a standard, it's way, way too fast! The idea of high-damage profile units just made the game into a more combat, straight-to-the-point focus like an arcade kind of things, hardly giving any time for strategy-thinking. It's more about micro your units in the fight, rather than trying to execute a master plan or trying to do some combat tactics like fake retreat, scorch earth (Literally burnt that part of the map so the enemy can't use... you can't do that effectively in CoH2 now since it's all about frontline combat, the planning for those combat got shallow cause it's just about get on that point, not about securing an important location like churches, or high ground, etc). The combat output like units' DPS or units' powers shouldn't be brought up to like god-like shredding-stuff-in-less-than-5-second kind of things, but the game rather allows players to have time to react to something as shallow as retreat out of frontline combat (Not everyone has a good reflex, especially older one), but would be punished if the enemy managed to execute a wide, throughout encirclement through lots of planning that you didn't manage to set up a back-up plan. Like, basically, just highlight the thinking more, less focus on reflexes and lame just-throw-thing-at-that-point kind of gameplay.

Let's be real - Most of us here just want some kind of CoH3 with the cover mechanics, good balance, good engine and the 'original CoH2 mechanics' including cover, true sight, blizzards (just kidding), suppression, buildings and so on.

I also am open for new stuff which Iron Harvest will deliver without a doubt. But to be honest, give me a cover mechanic and 'multiple soldier squads' and I am pretty much content.

Of course! That's all what we hope for here, right? I'm just asking for a little bit more than what we had in CoH2 now

I am a bit afraid that people have some kind of disagreement about the term 'deep tactic'. You mentioned vCoH2 as it surely had more tactics involved than the current meta. But with 'deep tactics' I think about stuff like Iron Hearts 4 which is probably a really cool game but I simply am too stupid to play it because there are so many possibilities that you have to learn the game for 10-20 hours in order to play it.

This would scare of a lot of people probably, including me.

Let's be real - Most of us here just want some kind of CoH3 with the cover mechanics, good balance, good engine and the 'original CoH2 mechanics' including cover, true sight, blizzards (just kidding), suppression, buildings and so on.

I also am open for new stuff which Iron Harvest will deliver without a doubt. But to be honest, give me a cover mechanic and 'multiple soldier squads' and I am pretty much content.

Well of course. I think a lot of people here feel the same way; it's a very good mechanic system for an rts of this type. You make a good point with the top point too though.