I feel HW3 has better gameplay than HW2 when you get down to the tactical layer of it. Because yea, its ballistics-simulated again instead of the pre-calculated and RNG like HW2. In HW2, the result was pre-calculated upon firing, and subsystem targeting was omnidirectional (again not ballistics based)
In HW1 and HW3, for example, that not the case. For example, projectiles like missiles, can follow a trajectory, and collide with say, other ships (that may not be its intended target) or in this case HW3, also structures in space. So you can even use your mothership or large ships to shield/provide cover to other craft. This plays in hand with the fact that different ship types have different armour levels on different parts (starboard/port/bow/stern), so you can keep craft that is vulnerable at certain parts at different angle when a fleet of bombers uncloak and unleash a volley. Only problem is the game needs to explain armour/armour direction way better than it does and visually with UI or something show that better.
Some people dislike they removed subsystem targeting, and yea I get it, it should still be there, but it's not like they didn't reintroduce and bring new tactical layers into HW3 her
The let down of HW3 is simply the campaign story for me. I actually never disliked the HW2 story/progenitor stuff, I actually more disliked the change in gameplay with HW2, but even with HW2's focus on progenitor stuff, the story telling was still HW-style
In my own steam review, I wrote "I am disappointed in the story, not disappointed in the game" and gave it thumbs up, and that's how I truly feel. I am having a good time with wargame mode (both solo and co-op) and pvp skirmishes for example. My only issue with skirmishes is that we need larger maps, and also be allowed to hyperspace in the map again
