Oh god, I hadn't noticed at first... that's awful design. It seems to spend most of the fight ready to shoot its own hull.

That is utter stupidity, they should place the turrent way more forward!

Yeah, first thing I noticed too. Design wise makes no sense, like designed by someone who has no concept of firing arc. Would make sense to put a missile launcher there that fires missiles straight up, not a turret. If anything, the missile launcher and the Main gun need to be swapped.

The same design as the 2nd game, no improvements whatsoever.

@@withnoname31 No the HW2 design is better. None of its turrets have such poor line of sight as this one.

This is actually something carried over from HW2. The Vaygr and Hiigeran battlecruisers were freaking huge and yet had far fewer weapons than you'd think with the amount of hull real estate on display. Whereas the Kushan and Taiidan heavy cruisers from HW1 packed the same punch into a package almost half as large as the battlecruisers.

there were some modders who fixed this and made it a hell of a lot more convincing... the players would go apeshit if you configured these like WW2 battleships

@@SpartanChief01 Think most players would love it. Having superpositioned turrets makes more sense than stuffing turrets into recesses that limit the turret's firing arc.

@@Servellion just goes to show they haven't learned anything

@@Servellion At least the Vaygr and Hiigaran battlecruisers were designed with strong weapons that could all fire forward without giving a huge target profile if approached from the front.

x D

🤣🤣😂

Say again?

@@gregoryquint7653 CORVETTE DESTROYED.

​@@Leenux Sorry could you repeat that

I'm glad we get the same vibe, looks like someone over-inflated a Hiigaran Destroyer. Even the most interesting part of it to me visually, the mass of lighted windows on the sides just underneath the armored overhang closer towards the bow, seems to be taken directly from a HW2 Destroyer, so your brain guestimates that they should have the same amount of crew and be around the same size, but they aren't. It's terribly nitpicky but it's like the HW3 designers were just copying the visual language but don't understand how to really speak it.

The HW2 BC also required a shipyard to build it which you needed to hyperspace in because it was too big for the mothership

@@quazarKiragonNow for HW3 no shipyard, the battlecruiser launch from the mothership ala hw1, liked the shipyard in addition to be the capable ship to construct and launch a bc, also was a valid base once you loss a mothership in a skirmish, i'll really miss the shipyard was like an space station.

@@taerkasten5090 wdym "like" a space station, it is one! And it would be crazy cool if we had more (you'd be hard pressed to find to find a reason to add them in but). It would be like base building, but since these colossal stations can hyperspace, it wouldn't be too ridiculous! On second thought maybe one is enough.

​@@quazarKiragonthis is what makes hw2 feels majestic in terms of size ratio. And logical too, it's like we're calling in a shipyard to build battecruiser.

I'm pretty sure this isnt the final health, maybe the datamining got wrong because, in the video, the incarnate destroyer has more health than the battlecruiser. There's definitely something wrong.

That is terrible. at 4:30 there is only 3 fighters shooting it and its health is melting away. I really hope they balance the weapons damage and hull strength or else it is going to be a disaster. A HW battlecruiser should be able to take on a 3 destroyers and piss on them.

The ttk in this game make is feel like a mobile game. They need to slow these ships down and increase their health

@@underlordd Yeah there are a lot of problems. I see why they delayed the launch. Unit selection is a mess, there is no fire and maneuver, unit health makes no sense, assigning battle groups seems bugged, healing ships just straight up miss with their heals.

Giving them more hp and actual move fire orders would be a good start to start fixing some of the glaring issues for sure

Hey now, I've ridden in Corollas older than the game HW2 still rolling around surviving winter after winter. I don't think the comparison is apt, as there's a reason those things are #1 in compact car reliability. It's far more apt to compare this BC to one of them overpriced BMW SUV's: samey, inflated, and a repair and maintenance nightmare with a high cost.

@@kamu_yana we call them "granparollas" here for a reason. Damn things have been lasting almost as long as their owners.

My family is an multi generations of Corolla's. Have them over 850k of miles and still running strong.😂

@@kamu_yana Running long in a battlefield is another thing...

"durability of a Toyota Corolla" So indestructible then?

They already failed.... HW3 is shit already... not worth the time of a dedicated fan... story is shit already! HOW THE FRELL is the MOST POWERFULL WARSHIP IN THIS UNIVERSE LOST PLS? THere cant be ANY explonation for this shit! None that would make sense by LORE in HW!

@@christianresel8051 Maybe wait for the game to be released before you start having a meltdown like a 5 year old

@@christianresel8051 You're such a petulant child. Shameful.

@@SolaxeThat would require them to have emotional maturity.

​@@christianresel8051lol you're special as hell my guy.

It would have worked well if the new icon cannon sound/visual effect actually feels powerful and impactful...

I think that's the common things in modern sci-fi on sfx. Sadly it's what it is 😢 to appeal new and fresh.

The devs didn't play the old games unfortunately

Unfortunately, they don't have their own ideas, most of their HW3 ships are modified copies of ships from old games. I am shocked by such a shame...

@@homeworld2evolutionyeah, at least have them be evolved versions of the HW2 ships.

They should just use those ship designs from home world mobile and and give them proper weapons placement like ventral turrets. Those seems like hm3 ships already 😂. Like the tier 3 bc.

They copied a lot of the mobile game into this pc release, thats going to be the problem with it.@@darkgamerfx5034

@@homeworld2evolution Indeed. Half of Incarnate vessels are Vaygr laser/missile corvettes and the other half are fledgeling Sajuuks. The campaign's story will probably explain the latter, but the Vaygr corvette style seems like a lost cause. Vaygr fighters and bombers? Cool, blady shapes! Vaygr Frigates? Right at home, Taiidan players! Blocky and roundy exactly where needed. Destroyers? Intriguing! I see what you did there with the diagonal boards, forming a frontal "V"! Carriers? Niiice! A breath of fresh air from all the carriers being always flat. Battlecruisers? Just marvelous!! *Smooch* ... Corvettes...? Eh? Are those pistols in space? Why are they shaped like that? ... And BBI chose these as inspiration for half of a new faction.

BC in HW2 make logical sense, flat platform with main turrets placed on the most raised points so they would had 180+ degree firing arcs with negative depression firing arcs. This thing is just dumb.

Its because the AI functionality on this game is dogshit. This game is really dumbed down mobile homeworld. It's actually sad, they can't even recreate the most basic things that have continued to exist in homeworld 1, 2, cata, RM but yet are non-existent in this game. The whole research combined into build tree is really the proof you need

@@soulessification Combining build and research tree isn’t a terrible idea. What concerns me is that the demo looks so unpolished… If that’s the latest build, you have to wonder did they have some screwups internally or something.

The HW3 BC is run by a learning AI... atm

Exactly, it's so fast too. and it looks like a carrier with that flat body.. At least it's not paper thin anymore.

​@@hades4438 The flat body makes sense. Since the ship's main cannons are on its dorsal and ventral, it wants to show its boards to the enemy, and the flat hull provides a smaller profile. Docking bays are clearly visible near its engine, so the hull design requires space to hold fighters inside (like HW2 Battlecruisers did). If it can't be high, it needs to be wide. Hence a long, flat hull. I'm not sure about the ramparts around turrets, though... What is paper thin, is its hull points. Man, how this ship melts under fire. What were they thinking, making the ships more brittle than ever, while taking the effort to put names on individual crew members?? Are we to care about them or just keep yeeting and producing new ones?

Shame u can no longer target engines or weapons anymore tho :/

@@NeedItForFacebook What? That was the best part of HW2.

@@shadows.82 yeah, HW3 is dead on arrival. they failed at everything that made HW great

Never was a HW played but was very interested in this one since it's new and fresh. I really hope they don't ruin this like DOW3 was ruined.

I think they alredy did...

From what I understand I think our fears might have come true.

somehow, dawn of war 3 has returned...@@redknight6077

There could be a bigger ship ?

No, Bc's are way to squishy from generic fire, same for destroyers. TTC is too fast. That or t is this wonky battle mode where you get insane upgrades, like making scouts kill Destroyers in seconds.

100% agreed with this. How is it possible that 2 destroyers do more damage to a battlecruiser 🤦🏻‍♂️. Need to be at least 3 to destroy it. Bombers are a different story.

20 buck... thats all this is worth. MAYBE modder will fix that shit but i doubt it.

@@Bloodyss69Because they are called "destroyer", maybe...

There is no bloody way this is the final health. It has barely 4x the health of a frigate. Slightly more than that of a carrier. I get it, carriers aren't supposed to be struck, but a battlecruiser being that squishy is kinda ridiculous.

Well it is defense a Battlecruiser is supposed to be very mobile and well armed at the cost of armor... and that's more or less what this ship looks like.

@@Sonlirain lol why would a *DEFENSE* Battlecruiser be made with shitty armour and top speed? That goes against the whole principle of defense. If a capital ship is designed to be mobile and well armed, it's so it can get in and out of fights quickly, not provide static defense. The design is terrible (not to mention the awful, non-logical kinetic turret placement in the centre of a canyon that restricts it's field of fire?).

@@jake7824 I meant to write "In its defense". It's not classified as a "defense battlecruiser" in the game itself.

@@Sonlirain No worries mate - easy mistake to make. And your reasoning is correct (Much like BCs in WW1).

something is really wrong with this bloody ship. i hope they have dreadnoughts

I bought it, corvette was destroyed, corvette was destroyed :)

the HW2 BC design was my least favorite, the Higarran one especially is just wasteful. You have two ions and 4 guns on a ship that is three times the size of a destroyer, yet the destroyer comes in with 4 guns of similar size and torpedo tubes. Its simply wasteful the amount of space it takes up, I much prefer the HW1 Heavy Cruisers with their bulky design focused on as much firepower as possible onto a single capital ship.

Me 2!

They have similar gun count to all previous games, original. HW2 in ship icon shown how much space Ion cannon is taking, now include hangar for 5 squadrons. Complex slaps gun on a gun on top of a gun Only thing missing from vanilla capital ships is higher amount of point defense guns as 4-6 really dosent cut it

@@arczer2519 well for this bc it is missing 4 pulsar-guns comparad to the hw2 model and i think it even hat mg-slots. not shure on those though, maybe only on carriers and motherships.

@@Xayl42 ye Mg-slots were only on Vaygr DD and BC overall: Hiigarian BC: 4 pulse beamers Vaygr BC: 4 laser lances + 5 hull defense gun (MG's)

Given how fast the healing on it was, it seems like they have tried to speed up the gameplay ALOT compared to previous titles. I wouldn't be surprised in this build alot of the units feel like glass cannons. That's not necessarily a bad thing but definitely a departure from the previous games. Though personally i prefer the slower pace of the older games, it makes the space battles feel larger and cinematic.

"Mining and repair beams" are literally how mining and repair systems in this series work, and visually it was like this in every game other than HW2. As per the Homeworld manual, the Phased Disassembler Arrays essentially use fusion torches to disassemble the target material on an atomic level, sort the elements by atomic weight and store the material for later use. The specifics of how PDA-based construction works is not elaborated upon, but I imagine that it's a somewhat similar process in reverse - imagine a 3D printer, only far more energetic, with a far finer resolution and with an unlimited range of feedstock. As per the manual of the original Homeworld, rapid construction of ships is enabled by multiple production lines running in parallel, though. The "repair beams" are apparently modified PDAs, if the Homeworld: Cataclysm manual is anything to go by. I imagine that outside of game mechanics they are best used to patch hull breaches, and internal damage has to be dealt with by some other means. That said, the visuals of HW2 mining ships evoked the image of a somewhat more... streamlined process. To me, landing on an asteroid, tapping into an ore vein and running the extracted ore through a PDA onboard a ship seems to be more efficient in terms of energy and time spent, as well as yield, compared to stripping matter off the entire asteroid layer by layer and only then sorting and processing it.

@@SV5195RSo you agree? It's a step back?

It's the hull point values that need to go up.

if you explain to yourself how you can repair another ship using a beam

@@homeworld2evolution Don't gotta make anything up as it's already pretty well-established in supplementary lore. It's the same tech that HW1 Collectors (and even Salvagers in DoK!) use to suck resources from asteroid surfaces- the Phased Dissassembly Array. Support Frigates just use a PDA in reverse to plaster raw materials onto hull breaches like band-aids, and then finer repairs to the busted stuff underneath the raw metal blob are done by internal damage control teams. Presumably the tech to more precisely and quickly replicate broken hull stuff only got better in the hundred years to HW3, but there you go, healing beams. They only removed them in HW2 because they wanted to nerf healing by making you pay in easily destroyed Resource Collectors, but these "magic" green beams have been around since HW1 and Cata and the way they work is well understood.

​@@kamu_yana a nice fairy tale for a teenagers... The Relic realized this in 2003 by making normal repairs on the hull of ships. Going back to 1999 only proves their inability to create new and interesting ideas for their game. You can see this in the design of ships, which are simply copied and modified versions from previous games. Incarnate all ships (frigates, destroyers, battlecruiser) - this is a modified sajuuk version, the new resource controller - is two combinated RU controllers from HW2, the new collector- is one ru controller from HW2, the new interceptor is the Taidan interceptor, etc. etc.

@@homeworld2evolution You've got some chip on your shoulder! Nobody was talking about any of these topics. Listen, a lot of people including me don't feel satisfied with how HW3 is coming out, but you shouldn't vent all of your grievances at once on a fellow fan like this. It accomplishes nothing. We all want the same thing: For this game to be worthy of all the time it took for us to wait for it, and to have as much thought put into the design as we fans have been imagining for over two decades.

I don't think it ever left them even after exile, just the games didn't exactly expand on that. Only HW Cataclysm felt like showing more like how Hiigarians are actually like rather than just "good guy's"

I disagree 100%. A battle cruiser is meant to be a huge ship. It should be almost stationary, while everything moves around it! Smaller ships should be able to use it as cover, both friendly and enemy fleets.

@@ChristopherVickers That doesnt work in an RTS like Homeworld.

That literally how it worked in previous game@@termitreter6545 ship AI had different engagement routine dependent on theirs targets, sometime they would stay stationary.

As someone who plays Starcraft I don't see much, if any Starcraft in there. I would also recommend to play your "favorite franchise" game again, because you might have forgotten how it actually played. It definitely seems to be rather similar. Some starcraftization would possibly even help. This game looks very slow and noncerebral, just as its predecessor.

@@vornamenachname594 You are not a Homeworld fan definitely. StarCraft is a good franchise, I have played it. Stay over there and let us, the real Homeworld Fans, be the judges.

@@Guelo6891 I'm a long time Homeworld fan and I'm mostly fine with the game, barring a few UI issues.

Homeworld: Cataclysm

Sentinels were cool. I miss those little guys.

Give us deflector shield please. They have it on defense frigate (I forgot what it called) in homeworld 2 that only last up a few seconds. I'm sure the tech is not lost. For over 100 years this sci-fi series should have bubble shields like many western sci-fi.

​@@darkgamerfx5034 That is what actualy distinguished Homeworld from other scifies, it is more realistic and tries to operate with known weapon concepts. It inspiered Nebulous and Terra Invicta which push concept even further. But sadly there is no place for goofy gigant generation ships in their setting. And HW 3 feels more inspiered by deserts of Kharack in terms of sizes.

@@user-uy8ss3hg6g I was just saying as you can see this battlecruiser is being criticized hard under these comments. But I do see what you mean.

This dude must have the hook ups because i wondered the same.

Maybe the game mechanism detaches the particle emitter from the ship at the end of the firing. As a reason, the beam origin (the particle emitter) ceases to move along with the turret.

@@haihuynh8337They should REALLY fix that!

I think that's intended to show they are some kind of Sajuuk-class vessel

хоспади чел. Всем давно было понятно что Хомыч 3 делают ради - изи бабки с настальгирующих. Странный угловатый дизайн гг фракции... Противники похожие на сплав предтеч и Вейгров (халтура) Простенький сюжет (ну тут как всегда) Да и в целом общая попкорновость всей серии без углубления в реализм и проработку... Тут надежда только на модеров и камунити...

@@3AnEKAHK0 да, модеры из чего угодно конфетку сделают. Кстати по Hom2 есть мод неплохой азиатский Yaodu_Mod. Дополнительные фракции у каждой свои особенности и корабли, есть супер корабли и супер оружие и т.п. Но на win10 не запускается, только Win7 Wista...

Lore-wise, it's supposed to be "the most advanced and capable warship in the galaxy". Heh.

It's being made by the artists of Homeworld. They have none of the original game designers on the team and it really shows, as it already did in Deserts of Kharak. They know how to make very pretty games, but they know fuck all about RTS game design.

Indeed, that can do checklist of features, but have no idea how they're supposed to mesh gameplay wise. It might have worked in Deserts of Kharak with was their own thing, but now they're try to follow up on the old 2001 idea of Homeworld. Probably the worst is that game is still salvageable, questions is if they can acknowledge the gameplay issues and address them or remain ignorant and just let it fall