I'd honestly like larger scale battles than dawn of war 2. For me I enjoyed the first one a lot better than the second. I would also love to see tau included in this one as well as grey knights. Maybe with the story you could have your own customizable hero and colors. Maybe an empire at war sort of map. What do you guys want to see?

Necrons. I think they'd do awesome as a DOW Army since their update.

I agree completely. Having necrons would be pretty badass. Imagine having a necron vs imperium space battle. It's quite feasible to include space battles in an expansion

A 4x type game would be kind of cool.

It should have a wide variety of scales of maps from whole galaxies to areas in a city.
It should have a wide variety of scales of battles from fleets in space down to contests between characters.
It should have a wide variety of scales of resource management.

You'd be able to move fleets from galaxy to galaxy and have huge scale space battles. In each galaxy there would be a number of planets you could conquer/occupy. In order conquer/occupy a planet you'd traverse a world map with different locations and in each location you could have a variety of battles ranging from ones consisting of huge armies or small skirmishes. Areas conquered or structures built would provide some sort of resource. There could be some sort of 'population' management for areas conquered.

They should have stuff you see in Sins of a Solar Empire (space battles; galaxy/planet stuff), Civilization (Areas to conquer; resource/population management), Rome: Total War or something turn-based(large scale battles), Dawn of War I or something turn-based(smaller scale battles), Dawn of War II or something turn based (small skirmishes between parties.), Sanctum (tower defense type games where you hold what you just recently conquered), and Super Mario Brothers (collect 100 skulls and get a 1up!).

It should pretty much play like some elaborate homebrew campaign that someone is doing with their league, club, store, or friends.

I second the larger scale battles thing, but I'd like to see much larger scale. A Company of Space Marines in action, a battallion of IG, etc... Something on the scale of the Total War series.

Id like to see Space Marines in DoW3

I'd like a larger scale, and a less repetitive experience than I had with DoWII (turn flank, repeat). I'd actually like to see some of the stuff from CoH, like the command lines, but more like they were in the Blitzkrieg Mod (doubt I'll get that).

A return of Last Stand would also be nice. It's the only thing I use DoWII for anymore.

 thenoobbomb wrote:
Id like to see Space Marines in DoW3

Your living in the clouds bro Some of us just dream for too much

A few things I would like to see:

-Properly sized squads (like dow I) 5 to 10 tactical marines, 15 to 30 hormagaunts, 10 to 20 boyz.

-Company sized battles.

-Every army (BA, BT, GK, 'crons e.c.t)

-Actual characters (Marneus Calgar, Commander Dante, Ghazgull Thakra, Abbadon e.c.t.)

-A larger campain map.

Several things I would want to see:


-- NOT having special characters from tabletop. feth that. They're spread throughout the timeline anyway. It's far better for Relic to come up with their own characters that actually suit the story instead of using GW's own unoriginal clichestorm of characters. Thankfully, Relic isn't likely to do this.

-- NOT having "company-sized battles", as that indicates way too much focus on Space Marines. feth that. Yes, I'm being petty. I'd like a focus on Guard instead, as if that's ever gonna happen. Or hell, how about a xenos-focused game? I wouldn't mind following Eldar, Orks, Necrons, or hell even Tau through a dedicated, full-length campaign.

-- NOT having every goddamned battle be a huge fething scale. feth that. Having it occasionally would be nice, but having every freaking battle be the same boring giant war like Dark Crusade would actually make it have LESS variety of gameplay than Dawn of War 2, which had both giant battles AND small scale surgical strikes and skirmishes.


What I WOULD like to see are more armies than the standard four-- space borings, space orks, space elves, and space bugs (or space borings with spikes on their shoulders) to start off with. But I doubt we'll get that :/

 Melissia wrote:
Several things I would want to see:


-- NOT having special characters from tabletop. feth that. They're spread throughout the timeline anyway. It's far better for Relic to come up with their own characters that actually suit the story instead of using GW's own unoriginal clichestorm of characters. Thankfully, Relic isn't likely to do this.

-- NOT having "company-sized battles", as that indicates way too much focus on Space Marines. feth that. Yes, I'm being petty. I'd like a focus on Guard instead, as if that's ever gonna happen. Or hell, how about a xenos-focused game? I wouldn't mind following Eldar, Orks, Necrons, or hell even Tau through a dedicated, full-length campaign.

-- NOT having every goddamned battle be a huge fething scale. feth that. Having it occasionally would be nice, but having every freaking battle be the same boring giant war like Dark Crusade would actually make it have LESS variety of gameplay than Dawn of War 2, which had both giant battles AND small scale surgical strikes and skirmishes.


What I WOULD like to see are more armies than the standard four-- space borings, space orks, space elves, and space bugs (or space borings with spikes on their shoulders) to start off with. But I doubt we'll get that :/

I agree. I would like to see proper squad sizes for once in the series as Blood guard26 said.

At least 5 factions and at most 9.

Missions are story focused like Chaos Rising, Winter Assault, DoW 1 instead of the others were several levels were just kill the enemy on this map for no reason but to take land / get wargear

A game realistic as Close Combat 2-5 would be great.

Large scale 40k strategy (Master of Orion 2/Star Wars Rebellion style) would be epic.

Realistic... 40k?

Uhm, you should start saying things that aren't random crap pushed together as if they make any sense.

More sync kills. That's what made me fall in love with DoW in the first place. Besides the walking coffins and superhumans covered in armor several feet thick.

Maybe they could nix the Space Marines altogether or maybe make them just an elite unit (kind of like how Spartans are a special unit in Halo Wars). It would kind of cool if the focus was on more of the Imperium in general like the Imperial Guard, Imperial Navy, Inquisition, or Ecclesiarchy. Space Marines or Sisters of Battle could be like a limited elite type of unit.

 djphranq wrote:
Maybe they could nix the Space Marines altogether or maybe make them just an elite unit (kind of like how Spartans are a special unit in Halo Wars). It would kind of cool if the focus was on more of the Imperium in general like the Imperial Guard, Imperial Navy, Inquisition, or Ecclesiarchy. Space Marines or Sisters of Battle could be like a limited elite type of unit.

I like the idea a lot. But what about all the diverse units of SM? and how would chaos work? Daemons and CSM combined but they wouldn't have a backbone of an army like IG

But at the same time that could diversify different playstyles between each forces

A shift back to the Command and Conquer style system of the first game with the massive battles back in. Company of Heroes has its place. But if you look at the detail and animations on games like Shogun with literally hundreds of execution and interactive fighting animations on screen then the fighting really isn't what it could be. They reduced the scale in DoW2 but didn't add any greater detail, interesting kill animations or make the sort of leaps you'd expect after so long.

Also, as I hinted above. Better and more awesome kill animations and interactive fighting. Not just a few stock ones and make them more common. Fighting in the 41st millenium should be spectacular and over the top.

I really hope that they make a more concise and exciting story than what they had in DoW 2. It was sooo bad and is another case of them shrinking the scale but not making the game better for it. Either do what they did in Dark Crusade and make some really good scenarios and interactions between the generals. A tale of your general vs the world. Or, make it focus on one faction and have a body of characters that have their own CGI cutscene storyline which unfolds as you fight through the campaign. A bit like in Starcraft and other strategy games. But make it good.

 Totalwar1402 wrote:
But if you look at the detail and animations on games like Shogun

Seriously, you're using Total War as your example of good in-game animations.

What a crock.

 Totalwar1402 wrote:
Either do what they did in Dark Crusade

Throne on Earth, no, I hope they avoid Dark Crusade / Soulstorm style "every mission is a skirmish" like the plague. They were the worst games in the DoW franchise by far as far as campaigns go.

Seriously, you're using Total War as your example of good in-game animations.

Have you ever zoomed in? They're actually surprisingly cinematic considering the scale (not that I think that's a good direction for DoW).

I'd actually like a story based campaign as well as an option for a meta-campaign. Meta-campaigns are easy to code in comparison, and two or three guys could throw one together with little work.

 Melissia wrote:

 Totalwar1402 wrote:
But if you look at the detail and animations on games like Shogun

Seriously, you're using Total War as your example of good in-game animations.

What a crock.

I hate to see what type of machine I'd need to handle your idea of "good" in-game animations.

Eldar Swooping Hawks please k thnx

 Melissia wrote:

 Totalwar1402 wrote:
But if you look at the detail and animations on games like Shogun

Seriously, you're using Total War as your example of good in-game animations.

What a crock.

 Totalwar1402 wrote:
Either do what they did in Dark Crusade

Throne on Earth, no, I hope they avoid Dark Crusade / Soulstorm style "every mission is a skirmish" like the plague. They were the worst games in the DoW franchise by far as far as campaigns go.

All the ones from Empire onwards really enhanced the animations for when you're fighting. When you rout an enemy line you'll have dozens of guys writhing in pain on the ground. Units killed and shot by arrows go down very differently to those killed in mellee. They actually have sword duels with eachother and interact with eachother by ramming spears and swords through their opponents bodies. The only lack of realism is no blood and if you buy the Blood Pack DLC then it adds in full anime style decapitations, limb severing, and blood spray . When you consider fights of thousands of soldiers happening on screen thats quite an impressive achievement. Dawn of War 2 having your force commander do that one occasional animation where he leaps onto the enemy and chainsaws him gets really old. I've always liked to consider DoW and TW series to be rivals ever since DoW1 came out at the same time as RTW.

You didn't play for the skirmishs you played for the interesting HQ missions which were special scenarios with dialogue. I felt these were much better done in terms of how good the missions were and the dialogue than in Soulstorm. In Soulstorm they just felt tedious and annoying whilst in DC it was really cool having to fight your way into a Necron base, drop off the bomb and get out. It was also good to upgrade your commander and get their take on trying to sieze all of these HQs. Especially the little spats you get between the generals. ie the Chaos Lord listening to the Guard generals speech and mocking it. The Imperial factions talking of who is in the right. The Eldar taunting how the Blood Ravens don't worship the Emperor in this temple they sieze. That was largely absent in Soulstorm and for me it lacked a lot of the charm Dark Crusade had. Plus that game was glitchy and laggy as hell on my old PC. DC ran smoother than anything.

 Totalwar1402 wrote:
All the ones from Empire onwards really enhanced the animations for when you're fighting.

And yet, it's still inferior to DoW2.

 Totalwar1402 wrote:
You didn't play for the skirmishs you played for the interesting HQ missions

The skirmishes were 90% of the game. Just because you have a bad memory doesn't counter this fact.

Chaos Rising and Retribution were both thousands of times better than Dark Crusade in that regard.

With how fun Last Stand is/was to play I'd want them to focus on making that a better type of game mode.

Perhaps have maps that the players need to traverse, better enemy AI, more enemies, more wargear, more commanders etc.

A PvP system somewhat similar to last stand might be nice too.

I'm not bothered about it being competitive just fun.

CoH 2 is expanding its scale so its quite likely that DoW 3 will as well.

DoW 2's combat animatiosn were nothing to write home about.

I want the game to be more like the Engine it was originally based on(CoH) so a more dynamic cover and vehicle damage system. And bigger maps(so all the individual soldiers will be smaller)

I want there to be space battles.

I want the Campaign to be customizable. So you can take your own chapter/IG regiment/Waaagh/Craftworld for a spin of Galactic conquest.

 Melissia wrote:

 Totalwar1402 wrote:
All the ones from Empire onwards really enhanced the animations for when you're fighting.

And yet, it's still inferior to DoW2.

 Totalwar1402 wrote:
You didn't play for the skirmishs you played for the interesting HQ missions

The skirmishes were 90% of the game. Just because you have a bad memory doesn't counter this fact.

Chaos Rising and Retribution were both thousands of times better than Dark Crusade in that regard.

While I do agree about the annoyance of the skrimishes. The HQ missions in Dark Crusade (Soulstorm's was ... okay) were very good. because of that character banter. I consider Winter Assault and Chaos Rising to be the best in the series (if you ignore their short length) but that doesnt mean those HQ missions werent good.


Ya I wasnt playing for the skrimishes, I play for the next HQ mission to listen to the character banter. I particulllarly like the Humans dialogue to each other.

I want all selections from the codex's of each race they use instead of a snippet like they usually do...

And flyers... storm talons and dakka jets, yes please...

I'd be interested in a DoW III. What would I want from it? Campaignwise, I think a crossover between DoW I (scope, gameplay) and Final Liberation (content) would be neat. You'd have a huge map with sectors to fight over, and depending on the zone you'd have different cutscenes and objectives. I don't mind the classic skirmishes too much, provided the maps offer a sufficient degree of variety. I'm a bit torn on whether unit reinforcement (aside from drop troops readied beforehand) and building construction (aside from turrets and obstacles) should be possible during combat (a la C&C) or just on the tactical map (a la Total War). The latter would undoubtedly increase the strategic part a little, in that you'd have to keep supply routes in mind, or even retreat from a battle you cannot win to save the troops.

I think I could also grow accustomed to the small-groups style of CoH, but given how it lends itself only to the more powerful armies, some thought would have to be given on what to do with the ones that deal more in quantity rather than quality. Trying to simulate Imperial Guard with a 30 man cap is bound to fail, but if the campaign/mission is tailored to this - for example by telling the story of a single platoon that somehow ended up behind enemy lines, or is all that is left from its entire regiment, or a squad of Storm Troopers with some uberimportant mission - it could work. Just ... don't try to sell these boys as a full army.

Bottom line: My own preferences gravitate heavily towards "updated DoW I" versus "CoH meets Chaos Gate with additional RPG elements".

Advanced multiplayer options would be cool, too. Like dynamic worldwide campaigns where people would team up and fight over territories a la the tabletop's own Armageddon 3 or Eye of Terror campaigns. Complete with lobby, planning forum, and special equipment for the army leader to be gained from fighting in the big war.

Also, SoB, Tau and Dark Eldar plx. The more armies the merrier, but unfortunately only the first DoW really covered just about all the possibilities. For some armies, the developer could even offer DLCs with alternate models using the same rules as the basic army (thus covering various Marine Chapters, IG regiments, individual Chaos Gods, etc).

Dawn of war 1 with amazing graphics.

 Lynata wrote:
Bottom line: My own preferences gravitate heavily towards "updated DoW I" versus "CoH meets Chaos Gate with additional RPG elements".

This annoys me. If it's nothing more than DoW1 with updated graphics, it's gonna brow chunks more than starcrapped 2 did.

"I want the same game as before!" Well, go play the game you had before then?

 Testify wrote:
Dawn of war 1 with amazing graphics.

Why would you want an 8 year old game with a new coat of paint? That's boring as hell. You still have Dawn of War 1, wouldn't you rather have something new, different, interesting, or unique? That kind of thinking is why we get the same shooters every single year with a few different multiplayer maps.

Melissia wrote:This annoys me. If it's nothing more than DoW1 with updated graphics, it's gonna brow chunks more than starcrapped 2 did.
"I want the same game as before!" Well, go play the game you had before then?

I suppose you think that, say, FallOut 2 was "the same" as FallOut 1 then, and everybody who purchased it was an idiot.

Maybe some people just like the idea of updated graphics and a new campaign compared to "experiments" that may well lead to a gakky game that fails because it tried to be different.

Brother SRM wrote:That kind of thinking is why we get the same shooters every single year with a few different multiplayer maps.

You mean like the Mass Effect series? Or like Call of Duty? Because there is a difference.

I'm not saying every game needs to turn the genre on its head and revolutionize its own franchise. If DoW3 had more in common with DoW2 than DoW1 that wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. However, when somebody says "I want DoW1 with better graphics" that's really, really boring. I already have DoW1, and while I'd love for it to look better I'd rather get something different.

I wasn't criticizing Mass Effect at all; I think the progression from ME1 to ME2 is really excellent, and while they're still both "spacemans shooting bads from cover" there's a real evolution of the game between the two. I was, however, criticizing the Call of Duty games, which went from being my favorite shooter franchise to a rote exercise in repetition. I haven't played MW3, but Black Ops had no innovation over MW2, which itself was only a refinement of MW1. General consensus is that that boring trend continues with MW3, and Black Ops made me quit the franchise altogether. Now, I don't see this happening with DoW as a franchise, but I think stagnation like that kills the game. I've already played a million matches of DoW1 and 2 and don't really need to play those games again but under a new label for $60.

If DoW3 wants to combine the features of DoW2 (destructible terrain, positional damage on vehicles and proximity to firing, suppression, limited or removed base construction) with the scale of DoW1, then we could have something cool. If it's old games with a new coat of paint I'll probably still get it because I'm a 40k junkie, but it won't get the hundreds of hours of gameplay DoW1 and 2 got out of me.

 Melissia wrote:

 Lynata wrote:
Bottom line: My own preferences gravitate heavily towards "updated DoW I" versus "CoH meets Chaos Gate with additional RPG elements".

This annoys me. If it's nothing more than DoW1 with updated graphics, it's gonna brow chunks more than starcrapped 2 did.

"I want the same game as before!" Well, go play the game you had before then?

DOW2 sucked, so people look at DOW1 and say "well that was alright, do that again". It's possible to work and improve on DOW1, just pretend DOW2 didn't happen.

For example, fully destructable terrain, off-map abilities, C&C generals like abilities tree, etc.

Brother SRM wrote:I'm not saying every game needs to turn the genre on its head and revolutionize its own franchise. If DoW3 had more in common with DoW2 than DoW1 that wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. However, when somebody says "I want DoW1 with better graphics" that's really, really boring. I already have DoW1, and while I'd love for it to look better I'd rather get something different.
I wasn't criticizing Mass Effect at all; I think the progression from ME1 to ME2 is really excellent, and while they're still both "spacemans shooting bads from cover" there's a real evolution of the game between the two. I was, however, criticizing the Call of Duty games, which went from being my favorite shooter franchise to a rote exercise in repetition. I haven't played MW3, but Black Ops had no innovation over MW2, which itself was only a refinement of MW1. General consensus is that that boring trend continues with MW3, and Black Ops made me quit the franchise altogether. Now, I don't see this happening with DoW as a franchise, but I think stagnation like that kills the game. I've already played a million matches of DoW1 and 2 and don't really need to play those games again but under a new label for $60.
If DoW3 wants to combine the features of DoW2 (destructible terrain, positional damage on vehicles and proximity to firing, suppression, limited or removed base construction) with the scale of DoW1, then we could have something cool. If it's old games with a new coat of paint I'll probably still get it because I'm a 40k junkie, but it won't get the hundreds of hours of gameplay DoW1 and 2 got out of me.

See, that I can actually agree with, for the most part. I believe what sets the Mass Effect games apart is less the mechanical changes (which, while existent and in some cases actually negative imho, where relatively minor compared to the evolution of DoW) but rather the story that these games tell. You don't have story in multiplayer games, which is why I believe they will appear much more repetetive. Short of revolutionising the core concept, there's little you can do aside from polishing up the graphics and throwing a couple new maps in there. Hence I thought it a bit "unfair" that you would generalise all recent shooters like that. Whilst it may be true for pure multiplayer games (for the reasons mentioned above), it certainly doesn't apply to story-heavy ones.

I also think that a lot of fans may just be a little anxious to see which direction a sequel would take. Not everybody liked the direction DoW II has taken, so naturally some of us may be inclined to believe that just polishing what they've grown to love is preferable to risking another disappointment.
Some of us may not even have played DoW II because the scale and focus turned them down, so they might not be aware of all of its features.

I like that idea concerning a combination of what you listed.

 Testify wrote:

DOW2 sucked, so people look at DOW1 and say "well that was alright, do that again". It's possible to work and improve on DOW1, just pretend DOW2 didn't happen.

For example, fully destructable terrain, off-map abilities, C&C generals like abilities tree, etc.

DoW2 ruled, it was just different which is one reason I liked it so much. I'm curious why you don't seem to like it though, and why you're so vocal about it. All of the things you just listed at the bottom were features in DoW2; as I posted before, I think it would be excellent if they took the lessons they learned from DoW1 and DoW2, two games that I love dearly, and made a third game that combined the best from each. No reason to throw out the baby with the bathwater or whatever.

He probably hasn't even played it.

DoW1 wasn't really that spectacular when it comes to gameplay mechanics, and the gameplay makes me unable to bring myself to play it again when I could instead be playing DoW2. Kinda like Starcraft, it was great when I first got it, but better games have been released since.

DoW3 having the option for large scale battles in skirmish mode and some larger scale battles in single player mode-- I'm okay with that. Even including more buildings that you can construct or take over or whatever-- okay, cool, I liked how it was done in CoH after all. And having more factions is great, too. But a copy-paste graphical enhancement of DoW1-- a game that really hasn't aged well at all? Boring!

Hell, I wouldn't mind if they did something like a 40k version of Wargame: European Escalation or RUSE. That'd be pretty good for huge scale battles, the latter could even include titans. But DoW1's mechanics won't work very well for that scale.

 Melissia wrote:
He probably hasn't even played it.

DoW1 wasn't really that spectacular when it comes to gameplay mechanics, and the gameplay makes me unable to bring myself to play it again when I could instead be playing DoW2. Kinda like Starcraft, it was great when I first got it, but better games have been released since.

DoW3 having the option for large scale battles in skirmish mode and some larger scale battles in single player mode-- I'm okay with that. Even including more buildings that you can construct or take over or whatever-- okay, cool, I liked how it was done in CoH after all. And having more factions is great, too. But a copy-paste graphical enhancement of DoW1-- a game that really hasn't aged well at all? Boring!

Hell, I wouldn't mind if they did something like a 40k version of Wargame: European Escalation. That'd be pretty good for huge scale battles.

I'm pretty much 95% on board with everything in this post; the only part where I at all veer off from your post is that I enjoy DoW1 with the Firestorm Over Kronus mod, and it's the only way I can play AI skirmishes since the DoW2 AI is completely broken. If I can get a multiplayer game of DoW2 going though, I'm happy as can be.

I was never impressed by Firestorm over Kronus. Too much focus on being "true to tabletop".

 Melissia wrote:
He probably hasn't even played it.

DoW1 wasn't really that spectacular when it comes to gameplay mechanics, and the gameplay makes me unable to bring myself to play it again when I could instead be playing DoW2. Kinda like Starcraft, it was great when I first got it, but better games have been released since.

DoW3 having the option for large scale battles in skirmish mode and some larger scale battles in single player mode-- I'm okay with that. Even including more buildings that you can construct or take over or whatever-- okay, cool, I liked how it was done in CoH after all. And having more factions is great, too. But a copy-paste graphical enhancement of DoW1-- a game that really hasn't aged well at all? Boring!

Hell, I wouldn't mind if they did something like a 40k version of Wargame: European Escalation or Supreme Commander. That'd be pretty good for huge scale battles, the latter could even include titans. But DoW1's mechanics won't work very well for that scale.

You just don't like the base building type RTS's like Starcraft set the example for.

Problem here is, DoW 1 and DoW 2 are such different games the fan bases for both always clash because they have different taste, with a few bridging the gap.

I love Starcraft 2, I will be buying the Expansion.

I bought all the DoW 1 expansions, and I love the mods.

I love DoW 2 and the expansions.

 Alexzandvar wrote:
You just don't like the base building type RTS

I like Total Annihilation and Supreme Commander-- by far the two RTS games I've spent the most time on. TA and expansions, TA:Kingdoms, SupCom, SupCom:Forged Alliance, and SupCom2 are all heavy base-building games. SupCom, in fact, has bases so complex as to make starcraft look like child's play. I also like Command and Conquer, especially CnC3 and expansion, as well as Red Alert 2 and 3-- again, heavy base building games. The Stronghold series is almost entirely base building, and I have always enjoyed that as well.

Just because I don't think starcraft or dawn of war 1 are omg the btes gaem evar doesn't mean I don't like base building games. The premise of your argument is hilariously wrong.

Hell, starcraft isn't even the best example of a base building focused game. That's Supreme Commander, by FAR. Total Annihilation was also far more focused on base building than starcraft, and it was released before starcraft was.

I think base building is fine and dandy, but in 40k games I'm a lot more interested in making my spacemans kill their spacemans as opposed to playing Sim City 40,000. I could take it or leave it in DoW1, but I like it plenty in Starcraft 2 since the focus is an economic and not a military one.

Starcraft didn't even do its base building mechanic particularly well anyway.

How well it's done is up to personal taste - I just think base building fits better in a game that's very macro/economy focused, while a game in the 40k universe should be more about the actual combat since that's the draw of the setting.

 Brother SRM wrote:
How well it's done is up to personal taste

Dunno. I still prefer the way SupCom did it. Structures had a synergistic effect on nearby structures, although I really wish they had gone more in depth on that mechanic. Sadly a lot of SupCom's unique features-- such as its flow-sytle economy-- were toned down to dumb it down for the console audience for SupCom2 :/

 Brother SRM wrote:

 Testify wrote:

DOW2 sucked, so people look at DOW1 and say "well that was alright, do that again". It's possible to work and improve on DOW1, just pretend DOW2 didn't happen.

For example, fully destructable terrain, off-map abilities, C&C generals like abilities tree, etc.

DoW2 ruled, it was just different which is one reason I liked it so much. I'm curious why you don't seem to like it though, and why you're so vocal about it. All of the things you just listed at the bottom were features in DoW2; as I posted before, I think it would be excellent if they took the lessons they learned from DoW1 and DoW2, two games that I love dearly, and made a third game that combined the best from each. No reason to throw out the baby with the bathwater or whatever.

DOW2 sucked because it was DOW 1 but smaller. They got away with it by throwing in arbitrary player feedback "being shot at ->take cover" and hoping no one would notice.
Unfortunately, they did. My friends and I used to play DOW1 all the time on big MP maps. Can't even fathom doing such a thing with DOW2.

And honestly, there's no reason to hate on buildings. People have been bashing them for decades (I can remember people critisising the original C&C for such reasons) but there really is no alternative in an RTS game. DOW/Company of Heroes had it down to a tee.

I actually like the Characters,
DoW 3 would be fun if there was something like the Last Stand by itself.

 Testify wrote:

DOW2 sucked because it was DOW 1 but smaller. They got away with it by throwing in arbitrary player feedback "being shot at ->take cover" and hoping no one would notice.
Unfortunately, they did. My friends and I used to play DOW1 all the time on big MP maps. Can't even fathom doing such a thing with DOW2.

How was it DoW1 but smaller? Cover mattered more, could be destroyed, there was the important visual distinction that models would actually get down behind walls and such, buildings could be garrisoned and destroyed, characters were a much bigger deal, units gained experience and therefore better abilities, there are global abilities that effect gameplay and require another resource, reinforcements can't just be done anytime anywhere without support (Unit synergy! Look at that!) and each squad means a lot more given the scale of the battle. I can understand that some folks don't like DoW2, but that criticism makes absolutely no sense to me.

I think there needs to be base building, but each race should be radically different in how they do it.


Orks and IG should have fairly traditional base building, including defenses. So IG can build trenches, turrets, gun emplacements. Orks can do some of the same.

Space Marines build bases, but focus more on automated turrets. They don't make trenches or anything like that. More mobile style of warfare. Techmarines can reinforce existing terrain perhaps?

Chaos is a mixture of IG and Space Marines.

Tyranids build spawning buildings and some turrets, but otherwise are mostly an offensive force.

Eldar build stealthed bases around Webway gates. Very mobile, almost completely lacking in turrets or other defenses(deployable shields would be it)

Tau would have bases and turrets, but perhaps would focus more on patrolling drones. Maybe make their turrets be mobile.

Dark Eldar would be almost exactly like Eldar. Webway gates and portable shields.

Eldar and their dark cousins would also have the potential for hidden or stealthed buildings, as well.

Makutsu wrote:I actually like the Characters

I like characters where they are generic and customisable. Loved the ability to kit out my Canoness in Soulstorm. That's why I mentioned expanding on the RPG'ish features a little. Give players the ability to name their army leader, fiddle a bit on their appearance, buy them stuff with points, and allow this (in a limited way) to carry over into multiplayer. It doesn't (shouldn't) have to get overboard like in Spellforce where the focus switches from troops to leader, but you get the idea.

I'm a sucker for customisation, and such small personal tweaks on the army really do it for me.

As for base-building, I would agree that it could be limited to purely defensive or support structures. Gun emplacements, barricades, a supply spot, a dressing station ... Basically, allow on-the-fly construction of small forts. A bunch of Imperial Guard digging trenches and propping up their heavy weapons in preparation for the enemy, stuff like that. Something you can simply leave behind and re-erect elsewhere when it suits your strategy. In fact, how well you can "dig in" could very well depend on the individual army, with Space Marines having nothing but airdrops to support them.

I think the main reason they don't want to make it a straight forward RTS is because of Starcraft & Warcraft, some people will then be like "WT A RIPPOFFF OF BLIAZZARAD"

 Grey Templar wrote:
I think there needs to be base building, but each race should be radically different in how they do it.

I'd never really thought of that, and while the specific ideas you posted could use some tweaking, I actually like that idea a lot. Relic did something similar with Company of Heroes once the Brits were introduced, but something radically different with 40k would actually be really cool. I do think combat should still be the main focus, but you can't ignore the defensive nature of the IG or building dark shrines and such for Chaos.

 Brother SRM wrote:

How was it DoW1 but smaller? Cover mattered more

Arbitrary. All it did was slow down gameplay.

 Brother SRM wrote:

could be destroyed

Destructible terrain is good.

 Brother SRM wrote:

there was the important visual distinction that models would actually get down behind walls and such

Well, there's a reason I don't play Company of Heroes

 Brother SRM wrote:
buildings could be garrisoned and destroyed

They could. But given that it was such a small scale, all that did was slow down gameplay horribly. If someone's garissoned in a building, I want to blow them, and the building, to kingdom come. Not fanny around with small unit tactics.

 Brother SRM wrote:
characters were a much bigger deal, units gained experience and therefore better abilities, there are global abilities that effect gameplay and require another resource, reinforcements can't just be done anytime anywhere without support (Unit synergy! Look at that!) and each squad means a lot more given the scale of the battle. I can understand that some folks don't like DoW2, but that criticism makes absolutely no sense to me.

aka, the battlefield was smaller. If you make the scale of anything smaller, you can have more detail, that's obvious.

I am pretty fond of Dow 2... so hmmm.

I'd basically be fine with a new coat of paint, more diverse units, more races, more battlefields, etc.

Maybe the capacity to go slightly larger, more codex similar squads... although I think I prefer the fewer/stronger Space Marines opposed to what we have in TT most of the time.

Maybe a more robust multiplayer environment that would feed into a global campaign; similar to what they did with the 13th Black Crusade for tabletop forever ago. Might get people more interested in playing MP since they will feel like they're contributing something rather than just playing game after game.

On a gameplay critique, basically losing the game from losing one squad is really painful. Maybe make it possible to buy back your lost squads for cheaper, or at least your sergeants (man are they expensive). I know the game is really about squad preservation, and I think that is something that newcomers really don't realize.

I thought they did a great job with DoW2 overall, I just want MORE. I thought it was a much superior game to DoW1.

Dawn of war 1 gameplay with Dawn Of War 2 storyline. Larger scale would be cool - titans anyone? You know you want it. Campaign Missions Winter Assault style.
Mod support. A lot of mod support - I'm talking Firestorm over Kronus, Steel legion and unincluded races 3rd party style mods. They were great on the DoWs they were released on, so seeing them on DoW3 would be great.

And the much needed return of General Sturrn would be epic. A way to lower the graphics to a level that doesn;t crash my computer or cause ridiculous amounts of lag would also be brilliant. How can they top it off? Make it work through Steam. Beautiful.

 Testify wrote:
Arbitrary. All it did was slow down gameplay.

Actually, it meant that DoW2 takes more skill in tactics, because it was more than "plop unit X down here to attack unit Y of the enemy"-- you had to be concerned with positioning, facing, etc.

 liquidjoshi wrote:
Dawn of war 1 gameplay with Dawn Of War 2 storyline. Larger scale would be cool - titans anyone? You know you want it. Campaign Missions Winter Assault style.
Mod support. A lot of mod support - I'm talking Firestorm over Kronus, Steel legion and unincluded races 3rd party style mods. They were great on the DoWs they were released on, so seeing them on DoW3 would be great.

And the much needed return of General Sturrn would be epic. A way to lower the graphics to a level that doesn;t crash my computer or cause ridiculous amounts of lag would also be brilliant. How can they top it off? Make it work through Steam. Beautiful.

Well, if DoW2 is too much for your computer to handle that's a problem with your computer, not the game. Sounds like somebody needs to upgrade! Fortunately, DoW2 Retribution works through Steam, and Relic won't be going back to GfWL anytime soon. It's a good thing too, as GfWL absolutely killed the mod scene and made the game really hard to mod.

 Melissia wrote:

 Testify wrote:
Arbitrary. All it did was slow down gameplay.

Actually, it meant that DoW2 takes more skill in tactics, because it was more than "plop unit X down here to attack unit Y of the enemy"-- you had to be concerned with positioning, facing, etc.

This is also very true on Melissia's part. You had to play somewhat intelligently to gain advantages from terrain.

DoW 2 plays well to a Space Marine based games because Space Marines do not typically deploy in MASSIVE numbers.

Making it so they often are found in smaller squad based combat, which is what DoW 2 is.

Imperial Guard however are the great sledgehammer of the Imperium, they are a massive instrument that smashes apart enemies, not a tiny but extremely sharp dagger like the Space Marines.

 Melissia wrote:

 Testify wrote:
Arbitrary. All it did was slow down gameplay.

Actually, it meant that DoW2 takes more skill in tactics, because it was more than "plop unit X down here to attack unit Y of the enemy"-- you had to be concerned with positioning, facing, etc.

No.
Take cover from the enemy.
Try to kill enemy.

Adding arbitrary steps into something doesn't make it "tactical".

If you want an actually tactical game, try Cossaks. Or at a bigger scale, Hearts of Iron (probably not III).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Alexzandvar wrote:
DoW 2 plays well to a Space Marine based games because Space Marines do not typically deploy in MASSIVE numbers.

I always thought marines in DOW1 were pretty fluffly.
Deploy somewhere very fast, then blow gak up and leave nothing left standing. Pretty awesome


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Brother SRM wrote:

This is also very true on Melissia's part. You had to play somewhat intelligently to gain advantages from terrain.

Are you serious? Was every single encounter involving different variables that involved you having to think about terrain in an entirely different way every time?
I never noticed this when I was playing DOW2. Terrain was just an extra step to right clicking. Somehow, I doubt I'm a tactical genius

 Testify wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 Testify wrote:
Arbitrary. All it did was slow down gameplay.

Actually, it meant that DoW2 takes more skill in tactics, because it was more than "plop unit X down here to attack unit Y of the enemy"-- you had to be concerned with positioning, facing, etc.

No.
Take cover from the enemy.
Try to kill enemy.

Adding arbitrary steps into something doesn't make it "tactical".

If you want an actually tactical game, try Cossaks. Or at a bigger scale, Hearts of Iron (probably not III).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Alexzandvar wrote:
DoW 2 plays well to a Space Marine based games because Space Marines do not typically deploy in MASSIVE numbers.

I always thought marines in DOW1 were pretty fluffly.
Deploy somewhere very fast, then blow gak up and leave nothing left standing. Pretty awesome

They were, but your seeing pretty much the entire chapter being deployed, it's pushing the edge of the fluff .

Anyway, as IG most of my DoW 2 matches end with all the cover being destroyed and tons of massive craters and vehicle wrecks covering the middle ground between bases. Making to were all just running at each other with our armies.

I love to use manticores.

Wait, the DOW2 add-on has Manticores? If I had money I'd be severely tempted purely by that

Dark Eldar & Space Wolves

You never played it and yet you're complaining about it?

 Testify wrote:
Wait, the DOW2 add-on has Manticores? If I had money I'd be severely tempted purely by that

Retribution is far superior to DoW 2 chaos rising and the original.

Although with the new races and units like I said things end up being a massive punching match sometimes.

The Lord Commissar gets an ability to also call in Basilisk strikes to.

 Alexzandvar wrote:

 Testify wrote:
Wait, the DOW2 add-on has Manticores? If I had money I'd be severely tempted purely by that

Retribution is far superior to DoW 2 chaos rising and the original.

Although with the new races and units like I said things end up being a massive punching match sometimes.

The Lord Commissar gets an ability to also call in Basilisk strikes to.

Not in campaign mode...

What I want:

- Balance of scale - DoW2 style skirmishes to DoW or even Total War sized battles, but it'd be awesome to do both.

- Destructible scenery (that was the one vast improvement DoW2 had over DoW), of virtually everything. I always liked the craters in the ground in DOW that gave units cover, but was disappointed when nothing was shown actually making those craters.

-Repairable scenery (like bridges)

- Fortification scaling and repair: Units can enter into a building, and with the allocation of resources can enhance the building and the protection it offers / repair the damage slowly over time.

- The return of bases with an exception: Bases aren't "resource gathering" centered like Command and Conquer, Dune, or Star Craft, they are simply hubs to build and reinforce units and establish a defensive line (if you so wish). Reason: Players can play defensively if they so wish (like the IG)

- The return of flyers with the following: They aren't under your control (they are the Navy's) and as such you use them as air support or transports that can quickly travel across the battlefield.

- Better resource system - Have Requisition be earned by capturing resource hubs actually look like they benefit the war effort (like a mine terminal, a promethium rig, a refinery, a greenhouse, ect.) (Power nodes were legit, I got the idea at least).

- More customization like what has been promised, (being able to virtually create your own army down to the equipment they use.... we'll see how that pans out.)

- A Starcraft or Command and Conquer style campaign where multiple sides must be played to complete single player. Maybe if you play the Imperium, you'll never even encounter the Tau because you'll be to busy killing Orks Tyranids and Chaos?

- A viable World Editor... that's half the fun of RTS's anyway, a player made 40k version of DOTA would be epic IMHO. Who knows what other games might be created...

- A teaser for Warmaster Mode, where the strict law of a single man commanding the Imperial Guard and the Navy is suspended and you can have at it with everything Relic want's to put in the game. (Maybe it can be a "flashback"/ "wormhole" to the HH or something...)

-The return of arena mode

-The addition of survival mode where you pit your army against endless (and I really mean endless) hordes of your hated foe and destroy as many as you can before they overwhelm you.

What I don't want:

DOW3 = Total War, keep them separate, and true to table top. By all means make it Apocalyptic levels of destruction.

A complete dominance of a single race in single player, the best stories include everyone after all...

The removal of any customization we already have.

Ridiculous alliances. (multiplayer doesn't apply here).

A population cap on any army other than SM's... that could be their limitation. Honestly, if my ancient laptop (about 4 years old now) can run 400 Kirov's on RA3 (online), there's really no reason to have a pop cap.

I think that's about it... I trust in DOW3, Relic's done fantastic so far, even Soulstorm was *teethgrinding* good (enough).

A few comments here:

 DemetriDominov wrote:
-Repairable scenery (like bridges)[

Yes, definitely! This was one of my biggest disappointments, weirdly enough. They had made a video about it in the hype up to the game-- destroyable and repairable bridges-- but they didn't include it.

 DemetriDominov wrote:
- Fortification scaling and repair: Units can enter into a building, and with the allocation of resources can enhance the building and the protection it offers / repair the damage slowly over time.

- The return of bases with an exception: Bases aren't "resource gathering" centered like Command and Conquer, Dune, or Star Craft, they are simply hubs to build and reinforce units and establish a defensive line (if you so wish). Reason: Players can play defensively if they so wish (like the IG)

I'd really like both of these. buildings that are focused on actual gameplay, such as the various defensive buildings in Company of Heroes, would have made the game much better.

 DemetriDominov wrote:
(Maybe it can be a "flashback"/ "wormhole" to the HH or something...)

Throne on Earth, please no...

 DemetriDominov wrote:
-The addition of survival mode where you pit your army against endless (and I really mean endless) hordes of your hated foe and destroy as many as you can before they overwhelm you.

I really wonder why they hadn't done this for Retribution, to be honest... it was quite frequently requested and they had already done it for Company of Heroes.

Brother SRM wrote:That kind of thinking is why we get the same shooters every single year with a few different multiplayer maps.


You mean like the Mass Effect series? Or like Call of Duty? Because there is a difference.

OMG. someone thinks Call of duty games are different... were's the flying pig. did the fat lady sing?!

I personally hope for a completely different game, or a combo of COH and the latest Total War games sort of thing.

Jackel909 wrote:

OMG. someone thinks Call of duty games are different... were's the flying pig. did the fat lady sing?!

Well yeah. Call of Duty 2 was awesome, everything else was gak

 Testify wrote:

Jackel909 wrote:

OMG. someone thinks Call of duty games are different... were's the flying pig. did the fat lady sing?!

Well yeah. Call of Duty 2 was awesome, everything else was gak

Agreed

I'll admit, the latest CoD games have been kinda stale as far as new stuff. Its more of a continuation of their storyline(which is cool) and some small interface changes.

I want them to expand to some sort of global campaign game. Like you're in charge of a series of special forces strike teams in a global war. You're forces must conduct special missions, occasionally needing to raid for additional equipment and stuff. So basically merge CoD's FPS awsomeness with a strategic map.

I want to see tyranids....omnomnomnomnom!

 Grey Templar wrote:
I'll admit, the latest CoD games have been kinda stale as far as new stuff. Its more of a continuation of their storyline(which is cool) and some small interface changes.

I want them to expand to some sort of global campaign game. Like you're in charge of a series of special forces strike teams in a global war. You're forces must conduct special missions, occasionally needing to raid for additional equipment and stuff. So basically merge CoD's FPS awsomeness with a strategic map.

So Planetside 2 is what you're saying.

Bobby Kotick, Activision/Blizzard CEO, says their company won't pick games that:

"don't have the potential to be exploited every year on every platform with clear sequel potential and have the potential to become $100 million franchises. … I think, generally, our strategy has been to focus… on the products that have those attributes and characteristics, the products that we know [that] if we release them today, we'll be working on them 10 years from now."

Their whole schtick is just shoveling the same game out year after year until nobody wants it anymore. It happened to Guitar Hero, it'll happen to Call of Duty. I certainly don't want CoD games anymore, and I loved the series from the first game up through MW2. Anyway, CoD talk doesn't really matter since we're talking about a strategy game series.

Combining the best of THQ games imo:

DoW1:

- Same scale of battles or larger. I'd like to see equivalents of 2500-3000 point TT armies. Maybe a SP campaign mission that pits your entire army vs a reaver titan.

- DoW1 army painter with some of the metallics from DoW2

DoW2:

- No futzing around with base building. I hate having to waste resources and army pop on building guys to build buildings so I can build units.

- Last Stand. About all I play anymore due to terrible AI in the normal game. Expand this so you retain the depth of customization that you currently have but more races and more types of characters from each race (like MP where you have 3 different types of commanders you can choose from). Going Elite should offer tangible benefits like an additional equipment slot while increasing the difficulty of the waves.

- The whole RPG leveling mechanic was great. I'd love to see more of this and expand it into MP armies to some degree like what was done with Last Stand.

CoH:

- Terrain and building mechanics were great in this. I'd like to see a combination of DoW2 and CoH in regards to cover, blowing up terrain and rebuilding it. Being able to construct fortifications, garrisoning buildings out in the map (and improving them), creating forward bases, turrets, tanks traps, mine fields, barbed wire...I want it all.

Overall:

- More races. Everyone wants to play their TT armies in the game. I'm no different.

- Better balanced AI. Maybe it's just me, but THQ's AI always seems to be on one end of the scale or the other. There never seems to be any middle ground.

- More customization of units.

A return to DOW1 sized battles would be good, though I do enjoy SM armies being really small and elite.

Some form of strategic map mode like in Dark Crusade, but geared much more towards how the Total War franchise does it, would be great.

So basically what you are saying is Marines need to get buffed and the maps need to be bigger.

I agree


Like the Marine armies should be the size of DoW2 marine armies, but facing DoW1 armies on DoW1 size maps.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Like the Marine armies should be the size of DoW2 marine armies, but facing DoW1 armies on DoW1 size maps.

This!

Marines aren't that good. Besides, then you'll be whining about snipers even more!

 Melissia wrote:
Marines aren't that good.

They aren't gods or whatever, but in DOW 1 they were a bit under-powered compared to the fluff etc.

 Grey Templar wrote:
So basically what you are saying is Marines need to get buffed and the maps need to be bigger.

Marines aren't exactly weak. I don't see how making marines "realistic" means giving them unrealistic damage reduction vs plasma guns, or not be butchered by howling banshees.

Well, things could be more balanced with the fluff.

Such as adding armor reduction, and different types of armor ratings that will reduce damage. Like how in game there are different saves.



So Power Armor will reduce the damage of all weapons, except for heavy ordinance, plasma, high power energy weapons, etc...

Terminator armor will reduce all damage by alot, it reduces the damage less for Plasma and other energy weapons etc...


So a Power Weapon will bypass the armor and go against straight damage, but Banshees will have low overall damage output. Representing their lower strength, but also taking into account their armor penetration capabilities.

Pretty sure that's how it already works? Marines vs chaos marines with bolters take an absolute age for anyone to die.

Yeah, but the power of the shot isn't scaled to the target. Terminators take the same damage from a plasma weapon as a PA dude. The terminator just has more health.

Because they both share the same armour type (heavy infantry). It's there, just not scaled very well. IMO, the DoW 1 maries are fine balance wise.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Well, things could be more balanced with the fluff.

No they couldn't.

The fluff itself isn't balanced by any means. Marines basically are powered by plot armor in 99.99% of stories, winning despite being stupid tactical and strategic failures with no concept of how to win a battle aside from "hurr, I shoot da N M E!". It might make for a fun story (it's debatable), but it makes for really piss-poor balance.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Yeah, but the power of the shot isn't scaled to the target. Terminators take the same damage from a plasma weapon as a PA dude. The terminator just has more health.

It was the same in Chaos Gate.

God damn I feel old.

 Melissia wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Well, things could be more balanced with the fluff.

No they couldn't.

The fluff itself isn't balanced by any means. Marines basically are powered by plot armor in 99.99% of stories, winning despite being stupid tactical and strategic failures with no concept of how to win a battle aside from "hurr, I shoot da N M E!". It might make for a fun story (it's debatable), but it makes for really piss-poor balance.

Fluffwise as in "whats not all 'Hurrp Derp Speesssss Mureens"

I want the magic of DoW 1 (most importantly bases that are more than 1 structures- the army balanceing of DoW 2 (very few SM lots of Orks ect.) and a dash of extra awsome for good measure.

 Melissia wrote:
Realistic... 40k?

Uhm, you should start saying things that aren't random crap pushed together as if they make any sense.

Uhm, perhaps you should start you good maners and pull out not some random crap thats not making sense in the first place.

Sure 40k can be realistc, if you would take a second to think about it (as hard as it may sound to you). 40k without realism would be some kind of chess or strange cloud-dance. How do bullets fly in 40k, how is a Guard soldier working biological? Hm, perhaps realstic?

You just dont understand the concept of Realism to Arcade in a game, bad for you are just rude instead of contemplative and quite.

A system wherby you customise what you take, so you can chose between taking nobz or meganobz or tankbustas or lootas.

Or perhaps having a point dependant army list system.
Better controls for moving your units about, perhaps like starcraft.

Bringing building things back I know some people really dislike that element but it gives strategic placement also in doing so they should have a smart system that makes sure that every unit wont get trapped for example a squiggoth getting trapped behind other buildings that you now have to destroy.

Better matchmaking systems and customisable items that you unlock randomly or through achievements.

Laser cannons, Ork guns and Eldar psychic powers.

Yeah, realistic.

ANYWAY, as I said before, DoW1 gameplay in DoW2 graphics with some other bits (destructable terrain, etc) thrown in too.

I'd like to see more armies and more units for those armies. I'd also like to see us go back to the old army painter where we could input out own flags and shoulder pads.

And bigger. Epic bigger. I want to stomp Space Marines under my Titans.

 Dark Scipio wrote:
Uhm, perhaps you should start you good maners

Good maners? I don't own the Patna city of Maner in India. Certainly, I do not own more than one of that city. I think only one of them exists, but I could be wrong. Or perhaps you meant for me to start another city called Maner? Well, I don't really have any desire to do so, so that is an odd request.

 Dark Scipio wrote:
Sure 40k can be realistc,

No, it can't. Being realistic would basically destroy everything that 40k is.

 Dark Scipio wrote:
if you would take a second to think about it

Yeah, I've thought about it. The idea of 40k being "realistic" is still stupid.

 Dark Scipio wrote:
40k without realism would be

40k. Warhammer 40,000 doesn't even qualify as science fiction. Even calling it science fantasy is pushing it. It's about as connected to science and reality as flat earth creationism, except it's far more creative.

 Dark Scipio wrote:
some kind of chess or strange cloud-dance

A very advanced version of chess is a good descriptor of tabletop 40k, but we're not talking about that, don't be inane.

 Dark Scipio wrote:
How do bullets fly in 40k

What makes you think Games Workshop has actually decided on how their bullets work? In fact, bolter shells have many contradictory explanations, and even normal bullets behave in a hollywood fashion rather than behaving like science-- and let's not get in to the way they do their lasers, Throne on Earth, even if they DID decide to stick with one of the many, many descriptions of las weaponry, NONE of them would be realistic.

 Dark Scipio wrote:
how is a Guard soldier working biological?

Certainly far different from how our bodies work, that's for sure. Much of the lore surrounding abhumans, one-culture planets, as well as how much damage a human can take without dying is based on, at best, a first grader's misconceptions about biology, being nothing more than flimsy pseudoscientific justifications for having, for example, ogres in space, or WWI Germans in space, etc. And let's not even get in to the pseudoscience around Space Marines or the various alien races. The science, such as it is, is bent and broken and shattered and then put back together however the writers want-- just so long as it makes an entertaining narrative. The KINDEST descriptor we can use for it is hollywood science. Oftentimes, it doesn't even go that far.

40k isn't about realism or science, or any of that stuff. It's about a good narrative, and EVERYTHING is subservient to that narrative.

I have no problems with this. Do you?

 Dark Scipio wrote:
You just dont understand the concept of Realism to Arcade in a game

You're using terms you don't understand again.

In fact, I think you're actually just making up terms. Do you mean by "arcade" that something is "starcraft-esque"? Or do you mean cartoony graphics? Personally, I presume that you mean some nebulous, ill-defined nonsense that you don't even really understand, yourself. Certainly you seem to be having a serious problem trying to explain it.

You may think I'm being ill-mannered or rude, but personally, I think you're being incoherent at best. Spending some time thinking about your points so that you can elucidate on them in a manner that people other than you can understand would do you some good here.

I understood him perfectly. He's referring to what I got to know as "fantastic realism", a concept I first read about in one of the rulebooks for The Dark Eye, a German P&P franchise:

"Fantastic realism means that even for the fantastic and the wondrous there will be explanations and rules, and that the fantastic and the realistic elements within this world are interlocked."

I think this applies to the majority of settings, be them fantasy or sci-fi, and 40k is no exception to this.

He used the term realism in at least three different ways in the same post.

Sadly, GW views a Setting Bible the same way Vampires view getting a tan.

Wow, you caught a non-native speaker off guard. Indeed I forgot an N, and you make fun of it right like in kindergarten. Proud?

Melissa wrote:
No, it can't. Being realistic would basically destroy everything that 40k is.

So, how do you can the connection between our reality and phyic laws and 40k?

Melissa wrote:
Yeah, I've thought about it. The idea of 40k being "realistic" is still stupid.

So you come with your oppionion again, isntead of trying an argument. You certainly dont own the city of maner, but you dont seem to have share in the debate culture company.

Melissa wrote:
40k. Warhammer 40,000 doesn't even qualify as science fiction. Even calling it science fantasy is pushing it. It's about as connected to science and reality as flat earth creationism, except it's far more creative.

Did I call it Sci-Fi? How ever, isnt everything connected to science? How does a Sun work in 40k, more or less like our suns. How do you call that.

Melissa wrote:
A very advanced version of chess is a good descriptor of tabletop 40k, but we're not talking about that, don't be inane.

You didnt get the point. Sadly you dont question yourself but just think I was inane.

Melissa wrote:
What makes you think Games Workshop has actually decided on how their bullets work? In fact, bolter shells have many contradictory explanations, and even normal bullets behave in a hollywood fashion rather than behaving like science-- and let's not get in to the way they do their lasers, Throne on Earth, even if they DID decide to stick with one of the many, many descriptions of las weaponry, NONE of them would be realistic.

Of course they have, its just self explaining. They fly like our bullets (more or less). And thats realism too. Perhaps there are some worng behaviours but the base is realistic.

Melissa wrote:
Certainly far different from how our bodies work, that's for sure. Much of the lore surrounding abhumans, one-culture planets, as well as how much damage a human can take without dying is based on, at best, a first grader's misconceptions about biology, being nothing more than flimsy pseudoscientific justifications for having, for example, ogres in space, or WWI Germans in space, etc. And let's not even get in to the pseudoscience around Space Marines or the various alien races. The science, such as it is, is bent and broken and shattered and then put back together however the writers want-- just so long as it makes an entertaining narrative. The KINDEST descriptor we can use for it is hollywood science. Oftentimes, it doesn't even go that far.

40k isn't about realism or science, or any of that stuff. It's about a good narrative, and EVERYTHING is subservient to that narrative.

I have no problems with this. Do you?

You evade the topic. The normal guardsman is just a normal human. Nearly exactly as you and me. Thats everything. I NEVER said, 40k should be like reality, I just said a COMPUTERGAME about it should be more realistc. And of course I meant it like Lynata understood it. It seems it wasnt so hard.

I just meant a 40k game with Space Marines like in the fluff not balanced Guardmen+ posing as Marines would be nice. Realstic armourpenetration and morale like in the Close COmbat games is what I desire.

For me a narrative is only good if it is consistent. I dont like breaks to make something fit, we have enough of it already in 40k. Its sad that Marines are sometime weak cannonfooder and then Überheroes in the next game.

Lynata understood it, you -be honest- didnt even try, you just wanted to look smart.

Melissa wrote:
You're using terms you don't understand again.

In fact, I think you're actually just making up terms. Do you mean by "arcade" that something is "starcraft-esque"? Or do you mean cartoony graphics? Personally, I presume that you mean some nebulous, ill-defined nonsense that you don't even really understand, yourself. Certainly you seem to be having a serious problem trying to explain it.

You may think I'm being ill-mannered or rude, but personally, I think you're being incoherent at best. Spending some time thinking about your points so that you can elucidate on them in a manner that people other than you can understand would do you some good here.

Of course I try to find terms. Thats how discussion works, I was under the impression you knew that. Of course arcade is just a short phrase.

Arcade games are simple and follow only their own rules, thats what I meant with it.

Melissa wrote:
You may think I'm being ill-mannered or rude, but personally, I think you're being incoherent at best. Spending some time thinking about your points so that you can elucidate on them in a manner that people other than you can understand would do you some good here.

Do you really say, you dont think you were rude with all your insults?

And to be honest, better incoherent, than rude.

Melissa wrote:
He used the term realism in at least three different ways in the same post.

Really, or is this just the last excuse because your whole point is in vain, because Lynata broke it with a single sentence?


and last I give you this back:

Spending some time thinking about your points so that you can elucidate on them in a manner that people other than you can understand would do you some good here.

 Lynata wrote:
I understood him perfectly. He's referring to what I got to know as "fantastic realism", a concept I first read about in one of the rulebooks for The Dark Eye, a German P&P franchise:

"Fantastic realism means that even for the fantastic and the wondrous there will be explanations and rules, and that the fantastic and the realistic elements within this world are interlocked."

I think this applies to the majority of settings, be them fantasy or sci-fi, and 40k is no exception to this.

Thanks, thats exactly what I meant, and it describes what I meant short and simple. Never read it (although I played a lot of DSA/TDE), and glad to read it now.

I'll probably get a ton of hate for this, but maybe something more like War of The Roses or Mount&Blade?

LOL Here's one: an IG themed variant of World of Tanks. We all drive and blasting the jibblies out of each other with leman russes etc.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Sadly, GW views a Setting Bible the same way Vampires view getting a tan.

Damnit, why can't everything be quantified and set in stone!?!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 thefarseerofnorthryde wrote:
I'll probably get a ton of hate for this, but maybe something more like War of The Roses or Mount&Blade?

I've played mount & blade. It's a mess

 Testify wrote:

Damnit, why can't everything be quantified and set in stone!?!

Alternatively why can't there be consistency!

GW need to set a baseline standard for their core fluff, something that once laid down does not change.

But why?

So that there is consistency? There would still be room for the all ambiguity that is the hallmark of 40K.

I would like to see something along the lines of the old Codex Imperialis.

You know, I was gonna respond to your post in its entirety, but I got bored because half of your post was inane and pointless. So I'll just get to the parts that are actually relevant in this discussion:

 Dark Scipio wrote:

Melissa wrote:He used the term realism in at least three different ways in the same post.

Really

Yes. Just because you're too caught up in yourself to realize it doesn't mean that it isn't true.

In previous sentences you were arguing about "realistic" in terms of the thing being similar to the real world and real-world physics, which 40k does not follow anyway. You mentioned a sun before, but apparently you don't really pay any attention to 40k lore; a star in 40k runs off of some "spiritual energy" or what not, a physical energy which the C'tan eat and which, after being eaten, dims the star. Not off of fusion like in real physics. 40k doesn't follow physics, by its very nature. It follows the rule of cool-- if it sounds cool, throw it in, no worries about how it should or shouldn't work in reality.

You were trying to say something about realistic gaming, but you were so incoherent that you weren't actually able to do so. A different definition of "realism" than the first one you tried to use. And a push for "realism" is, quite frankly, destroying creativity in the gaming industry. Everything has to be "realistic", IE, samey gray brown boring crap that just copies off of every other "realistic" samey grey brown boring crap that was made before. Realism in video games is a lie that you tell yourself to accept half-assed, boring graphics and shoddy, copycat gameplay.

If you meant that it should reflect the lore more (a third definition you used in that post), that is not the same as realism anyway, and is just more evidence of your argument's incoherence-- if you had actually thought about and paid attention to your ramblings you might have used the term "closer to fluff" instead of realism to begin with, because it actually seems to reflect most closely with the inane babblings of your various posts.

And with Lynata's posts, you were grasping at straws attempting to claim that you wer using one coherent definition even though you quite obviously were not, and apparently still had yet to decide on what definition of realism you actually wanted.

So that's about four separate definitions of "realism" you're trying to use in the same post. And yet you wonder why I mock it for being incoherent? A game needs to be fun, first and foremost. If that means sacrificing realism-- and it often does-- then feth realism.

 Dark Scipio wrote:
Being incoherent is better than being rude

What a load of anti-intellectual nonsense. Congratulations. You actually managed to offend me.

Well Melissa, did you ever stop to consider that maybe the so called "Spiritual" energy of the Star actually is the energy its giving off with Nuclear Fusion? That the C'tan drains and feeds off of.

What something is called may not be what it is. A name is just that, a name. It doesn't automatically mean it has the same meaning.


You also act like we, the scientific community of the 21st century, actually would know more about the universe then they would 38,000 years in the future.

Science as of this points knows very little about how the universe is run. There are soo many things we don't know, and soo much we can't even detect.

Maybe, no definitly, there are principals and scientific laws that were discovered sometime in the 20,000 years between the current era and the Dark Age of Technology.


40k fluff describes stuff. Contradictions between their physical phenomena and ours are not necessarily so.

Anti-gravity is impossable, with our current understanding of the universe. But if we suddenly discover that gravity is caused by a energy field that emenates from matter and is effected by density, we could manipulate that and create Anti-gravity machines.



Realistic gaming is possable with 40k. Stop being thick. Gravity works there just like it does here, explosions happen there like normal, people bleed as always, collisions happen normally, etc...

Realistic is what it is within the setting. The setting takes actual realisim and bends it to within its own parameters.

Actually, I'd argue that we do know more about our physics than people in 40k know about theirs. Because we don't have to deal with The Warp, which makes 40k physics extremely variable.

Testify wrote:But why?

To reduce hte number of pointless arguments on the internet, if for no other reason.

Melissia wrote: What a load of anti-intellectual nonsense. Congratulations. You actually managed to offend me.

He does have a point there. You do get a bit... forceful... on occasion.

Grey Templar wrote:

Anti-gravity is impossable, with our current understanding of the universe.

Actually, not quite,, but using it in a meaningful way is impossible with the current level of technology. (The idea being that if Higgs Bosons give objects mass, then would it not be possible to reduce mass to the negligible point by 'removing' Higgs bosons? While technically not anti-gravity, it could have an effect, for all intents and purposes, identical, if a simple ion thruster can lift a fifty kilometer starship...)

 Melissia wrote:
What a load of anti-intellectual nonsense. Congratulations. You actually managed to offend me.

And that from someone who just violated all rules of an intellectual discussion. You reply is shame, you are making all the failures that ruin any discussion, typicall just trying to be right and not to find the real answer. Good you are offended, but you should be offended by your style and lack of thought.

Just because you're too caught up in yourself to realize it doesn't mean that it isn't true.

 Testify wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Sadly, GW views a Setting Bible the same way Vampires view getting a tan.

Damnit, why can't everything be quantified and set in stone!?!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 thefarseerofnorthryde wrote:
I'll probably get a ton of hate for this, but maybe something more like War of The Roses or Mount&Blade?

I've played mount & blade. It's a mess

Not exactly that, but kind of like it. Also, I like the IG themed World of Tanks idea

Palindrome wrote:GW need to set a baseline standard for their core fluff, something that once laid down does not change.

GW is actually fairly consistent, I think it's mostly that people pick up something from different outsourced products (which may sport a much greater variety) leading to them forming "unique" interpretations based on a very specific combination of books and a bit of personal preference.

thefarseerofnorthryde wrote:Not exactly that, but kind of like it. Also, I like the IG themed World of Tanks idea

I'd love a, say, 4-player co-op game where people pick a class and then have to make their way through a randomly generated space hulk. Every class gets something special (Space Marine: improved toughness and melee damage, SoB: Acts of Faith, Inquisitor: artefacts and psychic powers, IG Sergeant: crappiest gear but can command a squad of NPC companions, ...) and players will have access to a great deal of customisation, earn more powerful wargear as they go. There could be Wave-modes like in ME3's multiplayer, and a PvP mode where the other side gets to play as a variety of enemy factions from the co-op part.

-Less arbitrary unit caps. I want to be able to run 10 Guardsmen squads with an elite support squad and plenty of LRBTs.

-Less hero-centric campaigns. It works for Space Marines, but not for anyone else.

-A combination story-mode and metamap campaign. The metamap campaigns had not enough story, and the story mode campaigns weren't tactical enough.

-Bigger squads. Really? 3 Space Marines to a squad?

-In the original game, they'd better have the Imperial Guard. I don't want to only play Space Marines.

-For the love of the Emperor, don't have the same story and campaign for every faction!

DOOMBREAD, ever play Winter Assault? Well, I think we want that, part 2, with shiny new graphics.
The return of General Sturnn would be awesome.

 liquidjoshi wrote:
DOOMBREAD, ever play Winter Assault? Well, I think we want that, part 2, with shiny new graphics.
The return of General Sturnn would be awesome.

That sounds dumb and boring.

I want something better than that.

 Melissia wrote:

 liquidjoshi wrote:
DOOMBREAD, ever play Winter Assault? Well, I think we want that, part 2, with shiny new graphics.
The return of General Sturnn would be awesome.

That sounds dumb and boring.

I want something better than that.

Bit rude. Sorry for liking Winter assault [/sarcasm].

I like winter assault too.

But why the hell would I want to pay for a lazy ass graphical enhancement of an old game which I have played to death when I could have something better? Even if you don't like the direction that DoW2 went, there are ways to make Winter Assault Better that don't make it like DoW2. Maybe you want to make it bigger than DoW1 was. Perhaps you want to introduce a wider variety of units. Or perhaps gameplay improvements, such as directional armor for tanks? Or hell, even just basic stuff, like having the squads not do synchronized marching in squares?

Alright. How about Winter assault part 2 (i.e. some continuation of the storyline) with DoW2 style terrain/ buildings/ cover, while retaining the unit sizes from the original Dawn of War games.

I'd really like to see some way of messing about with unit caps. I'd like an option to field nothing but tanks, but not be allowed infantry in guard, or only infantry, or a hybrid, etc etc.

Final, unequivocal, irrefutable confirmation that the Blood Ravens are Thousand Sons. VICTORY!

 Tadashi wrote:
Final, unequivocal, irrefutable confirmation that the Blood Ravens are Thousand Sons. VICTORY!

That would be nice, though i doubt they would do that. They like the whole mystery angle to much. Enough to have us guessing but not be able to give a 100% proof

 Tadashi wrote:
Final, unequivocal, irrefutable confirmation that the Blood Ravens are Thousand Sons. VICTORY!

No Boreale
You ARE the heretics

I'd like a mode where we point buy an army and then slug it out, Total War style.

I doubt Games Workshop will allow them to do that....

No reason they wouldn't as long as the point values don't match what's in the book. After all, they allowed it to be done with WHFB.

 Melissia wrote:
I doubt Games Workshop will allow them to do that....

I dont think he means a tabletop simulator but a realistic ( ) approach.

 Brother SRM wrote:

 Tadashi wrote:
Final, unequivocal, irrefutable confirmation that the Blood Ravens are Thousand Sons. VICTORY!

No Boreale
You ARE the heretics

Definitely no more Boreale...ol'Gabe and Davian COOL need more screen time.

 Galdos wrote:

 Tadashi wrote:
Final, unequivocal, irrefutable confirmation that the Blood Ravens are Thousand Sons. VICTORY!

That would be nice, though i doubt they would do that. They like the whole mystery angle to much. Enough to have us guessing but not be able to give a 100% proof

It would give ADB a stroke at the least - and perhaps satisfy Graham McNeill, who we have to thanks for the masterpiece that is A Thousand Sons.

ol' Gabe?

Oh yes, bring Gabe Newell in it

 thenoobbomb wrote:
ol' Gabe?

Oh yes, bring Gabe Newell in it

Gabriel Angelos, former Captain of the Third Company, currently Chapter Master of the Blood Ravens.

 Tadashi wrote:

 thenoobbomb wrote:
ol' Gabe?

Oh yes, bring Gabe Newell in it

Gabriel Angelos, former Captain of the Third Company, currently Chapter Master of the Blood Ravens.

Gabe Newell is cooler, he is my BIG hero

No comment.

 thenoobbomb wrote:
ol' Gabe?

Oh yes, bring Gabe Newell in it

Deepstrike delays - worth the weight.

For me going from DoW: Soulstorm to DoW II was a huge step backwards. Removal of base building okay sure.. but even after 2 expansions they're still down 4 army choices. Tau, Necron, Dark Eldar, Sister's of Battle. The single player missions while enjoyable didn't feel like RTS to me at all, felt more like I was playing Diablo 2.. just running around mass killing everything for a few areas until you finally reach a boss. With the negatives that need worked on aside, the positive sides are two simple things.. keep The Last Stand and expand on it, and the second was already achieved.. getting off of GFWL.

I personally miss my Sister's of Battle, I often play TLS as the Lord Commander in all white with guardsman and a flamethrower just for the memories of Soulstorm.

Tahroo wrote:
The single player missions while enjoyable didn't feel like RTS to me at all, felt more like I was playing Diablo 2.. just running around mass killing everything for a few areas until you finally reach a boss.

So basically like Dawn of War 1.

 Melissia wrote:

Tahroo wrote:
The single player missions while enjoyable didn't feel like RTS to me at all, felt more like I was playing Diablo 2.. just running around mass killing everything for a few areas until you finally reach a boss.

So basically like Dawn of War 1.

No. The missions in DOW2 you run around killing small groups of orks, before you get to a boss. An actual boss.

In DOW1 you took out the enemy's army, then their base. Classic RTS formula.

You must mean the endless, samey skirmish missions in the latter two DoW1 games.

No, these were NOT a good thing for those games. They were more monotonous than anything in DoW2.

I liked DOW/WA/DC a whole hell of a lot. Soulstorm seemed sorta lame in spots, but kept going with the giant battles of awesomeness.

I liked DOW2 and it's expansions because it made it more, I dunno, personal? You get to know inidividual space marines from a troubled chapter that want to save their home,and that's a cool angle I thought.

The RPG/leveling elements are cool, but the purist in me doesn't think that a Captain of a Space Marine chapter would have to learn how to use specific weapons. I understand the different requirements to get terminator armor, as it is something that marines need to achieve a certain status to receive. Of course, if I were making DoW games, someone would have gripes about how I made it.

DoW3 is going to rock socks I think. Given that they're bringing back base building and army construction like the previous games. Not to mention the rumored ability to customize the army to how you want it to be. Would be cool to have specific Chaos Legions, SM Chapters, IG regiments, etc.

I am one of those that liked the DoW 1 combat style more than DoW 2.

I'd prefer a mix of the 2, cover mechanics from DoW 2 but with the base building, 'choose your units' style DoW 1 delivered.

I also felt that DoW 1's characters were better expressed, though that could be beacause you played as a nameless Captain with little to no background.

But Last Stand (IMHO, the best part of DoW 2) has to stay, I like the idea of 3 characters vs wave after wave after wave after wave after wave after wave after wave after wave....

Oh, and destructable terrain from DoW 2, and maybe have a few small skirmish and a few REALLY large battles in the campaign.

And definately bring back DoW 1's way of getting power, but with DoW 2's way of getting requisition.

And bring back the special elite units (the ones you could only get once you owned a relic point...)

Oh, and of course, more upgrades/weapons/races!!

The "special elite units" are in DoW2 Retribution.

Haven't played that one yet ;(
Still, glad to know they brought them back

 Melissia wrote:
You must mean the endless, samey skirmish missions in the latter two DoW1 games.

No, these were NOT a good thing for those games. They were more monotonous than anything in DoW2.

If you don't like skirmishes, go play an action game like Gears of War or whatever the kids are playing these days.

If you get bored playing as the commander of an overwealming surge of Imperial might crushing the xenos/heretic scum, then sucks to be you. But that's no need to remove RTS elements in favour of action elements.

Nothing more than an insulting excuse for lack of content. Shame on you, Testify.

"If you don't like the RTS genre the same way I do, stop playing RTS games!" What nonsense.

DoW2 and expansions had far more story and coherence than the latter two DoW1 games did.

 Melissia wrote:

DoW2 and expansions had far more story and coherence than the latter two DoW1 games did.

I disagree with the latter part...Dark Crusade was without a doubt the best expansion for Dawn of War.

EDIT: As for Soulstorm...well, Soulstorm is Soulstorm, 'nuff said.

I disagree. Soulstorm was better ,and even then, Retribution reigns king over the various DoW games

 Melissia wrote:
I disagree. Soulstorm was better...

You've got to be joking...Soulstorm? Seriously?

Retribution reigns king over the various DoW games

I prefer Chaos Rising from the Dawn of War II trilogy, but I would still pick Dark Crusade out of all the Dawn of War titles.

 Melissia wrote:
Nothing more than an insulting excuse for lack of content. Shame on you, Testify.

"If you don't like the RTS genre the same way I do, stop playing RTS games!" What nonsense.

DoW2 and expansions had far more story and coherence than the latter two DoW1 games did.

It's a spectrum. DOW2 is closer to an action game than it is to an RTS, in terms of scale, gameplay and story. DOW1, despite the huge innovations (at the time), is very much an FPS, for better or worse.

Though DOW1 is closer to action than, say, the Total War battlefields. I don't mind a few RPG elements, just not Generic Console Game From The Top Down.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tadashi wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
I disagree. Soulstorm was better...

You've got to be joking...Soulstorm? Seriously?

Retribution reigns king over the various DoW games

I prefer Chaos Rising from the Dawn of War II trilogy, but I would still pick Dark Crusade out of all the Dawn of War titles.

Agreed, on both. Dark Crusade is great.

The fact that there was still so much room for improvement on Dark Crusade was part of what made DOW2 so disapointing. Customisable wargear (NOT stuff that you have to pick up on the battlefield...facepalm), advanced logistics/basebuilding, rankable special abilities, etc etc.

You're really not going to convince me that that tired old game is better than DoW2, which was such a huge improvement in almost every way. Trying to pathetically and inanely give it labels like "it's not an RTS game, it's an action game!" just makes you look desperate-- who are you trying to convince, yourself?

Frankly, Tadashi, DoW2 is more RTS than DoW1 ever could be. It's not really any fault to DoW1. DoW1 was great for its time. But better things have been made since DoW1. DoW2 is one of them.

Hell DoW1's base building wasn't even really good; it was mediocre at best-- starcrapped light, as it were. If you REALLY want a good base building game you'd play Stronghold, Total Annihilation, or Supreme Commander.

Doesn't Supreme Commander simply involve buying units and having them airlifted in? Not played it for a while so I could be wrong, I don't remember much base building. Was a rubbish game anyway, after about 1 and a half hours in. Just "OMG TANKS MOAR TANKS TANKS SO MANY TANKS". Yawn.

I didn't say it was an action game, I said it was further along the spectrum towards action than DOW1 was. Personally I don't like action games, but some people do. That's fine for them.

I grew up playing the original C&C and Red Alert, not Duke Nuke'em.

 Testify wrote:
Doesn't Supreme Commander simply involve buying units and having them airlifted in? Not played it for a while so I could be wrong, I don't remember much base building. Was a rubbish game anyway, after about 1 and a half hours in. Just "OMG TANKS MOAR TANKS TANKS SO MANY TANKS". Yawn.

You clearly did not play Supreme Commander. Hell, I had bases in Supreme Commander that were bigger and more complex than entire maps from Dawn of War 1. They stretched for kilometers. My bases, themselves, had sub-bases that were bigger than DoW1 bases. My turrets had bases that were bigger than DoW1's bases. You didn't call in units from off map. You could, however, MAKE units and then transport them via airlift (the transport actually clamped on to them magnetically/gravitically and carried them physically to the destination), often having them fire from the transport as they arrive, effectively calling them in from on map But you had to do the work yourself.

A quick google search:These are relatively small bases.

 Testify wrote:
I didn't say it was an action game

Contradicting yourself makes for such a great argument.

 Testify wrote:
I grew up playing the original C&C and Red Alert, not Duke Nuke'em.

I grew up playing all three, and plenty of other games besides. You probably never even played the original Duke Nukem anyway-- the 2d side scroller where he wore a pink shirt and talked about Oprah

I have played the original Duke Nuke'em, stop making yourself out to be some grizzled gamer veteran while I'm a noob with a wii remote stuck up his arse.

Also, yeah. I was thinking of another game. Can't remember the name but it had "huge" battles between USA and soviets, was pretty crappy.

I may actually invest in Supreme Commander, always liked the look of it but didn't have the spec to play it at the time.

I think you were thinking of World In Conflict.

Yep. That game was rubbish.

And the measuring of the epeen's begins.


Every DoW is classified as an RTS, plain and simple. Arguing that one isn't doesn't actually make any sense, a different kind of RTS? Sure. DOW2 and it's expansions were build around the Company of Heroes gamestyle. Smaller armies/platoons attempting to complete objectives that are a part of the larger war. DOW1 and it's children were RTS in a more general sense, like SupCom.

I loved all the games actually. It's awesome to see my little plastic dudes in all their digitized glory. It makes those truly epic fights on the table come to actual life.

Note: SupCom was amazing. It didn't get the press it deserved, especially having been designed by the same dude who made Total Annihilation, one of the most awesome games ever.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:


I also felt that DoW 1's characters were better expressed, though that could be beacause you played as a nameless Captain with little to no background.

Did you even play DoW 1?

You played a Captain who told you his name in the very first line of dialog he spoke and was constantly refered to by his name when being addressed by Isaldor. The game constantly kept throwing his background at you about how he was responsible for millions of loyal Imperials dying because of the Exterminatus he asked the Inquisition to perform on his homeworld.


*Note that is meant to be a light hearted statement above, dont take offense*


Wait did you mean DoW you played a nameless CPT.... because if so I totally agree

I want my GKs back in DOW3

 Testify wrote:
Yep. That game was rubbish.

That game was fething awsome

 Galdos wrote:

 Testify wrote:
Yep. That game was rubbish.

That game was fething awsome

So many tanks...

Why does a tank cost $600 when an infantry squad costs $400? How can a battle tank only cost 50% more than 5 infantrymen?!?!?

It's the hats, obviously.

 Testify wrote:

 Galdos wrote:

 Testify wrote:
Yep. That game was rubbish.

That game was fething awsome

So many tanks...

Why does a tank cost $600 when an infantry squad costs $400? How can a battle tank only cost 50% more than 5 infantrymen?!?!?

Because infantry kicked ass if you knew how to use them. (Note I dont play multiplayer, I could give a rats ass about multiplayer balance, so maybe its not balanced in multiplayer but in singler player they were fun as hell to use

 Ifepy wrote:
I'd honestly like larger scale battles than dawn of war 2. For me I enjoyed the first one a lot better than the second. I would also love to see tau included in this one as well as grey knights. Maybe with the story you could have your own customizable hero and colors. Maybe an empire at war sort of map. What do you guys want to see?

I agree I would like a sequel, however I'd especially enjoy an improved last stand mode and improved net code. Large scale battles would be nice however I'm not sure how you would control all the individual units.

Im going to say this because I see it a lot.

You know what I DO NOT want to see.

40k Epic. I do NOT want to be commanding entire companies of soldiers at once or commanding several titans.

 Galdos wrote:
Im going to say this because I see it a lot.

You know what I DO NOT want to see.

40k Epic. I do NOT want to be commanding entire companies of soldiers at once or commanding several titans.

I would love an Epic 40k game, but I really love the company and platoon-level stuff from DoW1 and 2 specifically. They really echo the setting better than an Epic scale game would.

 Brother SRM wrote:

 Galdos wrote:
Im going to say this because I see it a lot.

You know what I DO NOT want to see.

40k Epic. I do NOT want to be commanding entire companies of soldiers at once or commanding several titans.

I would love an Epic 40k game, but I really love the company and platoon-level stuff from DoW1 and 2 specifically. They really echo the setting better than an Epic scale game would.

I guess I should reword myself.

I do not want to see DoW 3 in an Epic format.

A completely different 40k Series in Epic would be okay with me

I would like to see some Marine Chapters such as Space Wolves, White Scars and Iron hands to be put into a DOW game. God, I would even like to see a DOW game where you play as the Night Lords. I would not play a game with Tau as the main characters. I wouldn't mind to see a Valhalla Ice Warriors, Death Korps of Krieg or Catachan in it either.

A mixture of the old school Star Wars: Rebellion space battles coupled with a turn based TW style would be ideal for me. Let's you focus on the battles or on the strategy to whatever level you want to.

More explosions.

Boc wrote:
space battles

2 words, feth yes!

Anything with Eldar and Orks is fine with me

Boc wrote:
A mixture of the old school Star Wars: Rebellion space battles coupled with a turn based TW style would be ideal for me. Let's you focus on the battles or on the strategy to whatever level you want to.

Indeed

 Toastedandy wrote:
More explosions.

This is a very controversial statement, I'm afraid I can't agree with you at all here good sir!

One thing I don't think I've mentioned is skirmish AI. I would love it if DoW3 had a half decent brain behind its CPU opponents. Yeah, I never expect greatness out of AI opponents, but I'd at least like a fight. Playing against Hard AI in Dawn of War 1 won't exactly make for a smart fight, but they'll at least attack you, build an army, and take territory. In DoW2, the AI will actively seek to not engage in battles most of the time. It will just backcap and take points, but if it encounters resistance it will run away. I love DoW2, and Retribution has been my favorite in the Dawn of War series, but the now-dead multiplayer community means I can't really play the game anymore like I could with a decent AI opponent. I'm going to search out some AI mods later and see if I can make the game fun in skirmishes.

I'd like to see all the characters replaced with Dawn of Awesome style animations.

 Coolyo294 wrote:
I'd like to see all the characters replaced with Dawn of Awesome style animations.

Thats an easy hack.

 Coolyo294 wrote:
I'd like to see all the characters replaced with Dawn of Awesome style animations.

Considering how bad I was with 3D back in college, and considering I've only gotten worse since, I think a Dawn of Awesome mod would look just as good as the cartoons

I think that's the point

I would love to see 'MAKE YOUR OWN MAP' be in there, there are some really old games that has that and it's a nice little bit to add on.

I want to see all the races and expansion packs for lik i.e dark angels or black templars and such. Having a broader variety improves the game A LOT.

Large and small scale battles, ah, I know! online gaming, I mean like you and your opponent(s) agree on a points score (like warhammer) and then you buy the different things listed on the game for that amount of points and throughout the game you can get different perks for your army

I think that'd be cool.

- madman12367

The problem is those old games basically just had jpegs/gifs and heightmaps for their maps-- fake graphics, as it were. The Essence Engine's maps are much more complex, even when you have the proper tools.

For one, they're actual maps, instead of just being a collection of flat, static images with attached heightmaps arranged on a larger square.

Don't get me wrong, I think we do need a world editor, but even with one you won't be able to make maps as easily as in older games. It'll be more like making new maps in, say, Oblivion or Morrowind, rather than, say, Starcraft or Heroes of Might and Magic.

What I DON'T want to see is the Blood Ravens. So tired of them now.

What I would like is the option to have the campaign tailed to a particular chapter/legion/craftworld etc other than the pre-designated ones. Not like a different storyline for the Dark Angels, Black Templars etc, more so the ability to use your own colour scheme and a few voice clips where the character says "Dark Angels" instead of "Black Templars" etc. It can't be too much to get the voice actors to interchange words.

And yes, I know there's a mod for changing campaign colours. Just wishing they'd do it properly, and I could have it so my Templar marines aren't still called "Blood Ravens".

 Melissia wrote:
The problem is those old games basically just had jpegs/gifs and heightmaps for their maps-- fake graphics, as it were. The Essence Engine's maps are much more complex, even when you have the proper tools.

For one, they're actual maps, instead of just being a collection of flat, static images with attached heightmaps arranged on a larger square.

Don't get me wrong, I think we do need a world editor, but even with one you won't be able to make maps as easily as in older games. It'll be more like making new maps in, say, Oblivion or Morrowind, rather than, say, Starcraft or Heroes of Might and Magic.

Starcraft II has a pretty robust world editor and it's in full 3D. It's certainly possible, so long as resources are devoted to it. Always bummed me out that DoW hasn't had a map editor, but it's hardly been a dealbreaker.

Hourn wrote:
What I DON'T want to see is the Blood Ravens. So tired of them now.

What I would like is the option to have the campaign tailed to a particular chapter/legion/craftworld etc other than the pre-designated ones. Not like a different storyline for the Dark Angels, Black Templars etc, more so the ability to use your own colour scheme and a few voice clips where the character says "Dark Angels" instead of "Black Templars" etc. It can't be too much to get the voice actors to interchange words.

And yes, I know there's a mod for changing campaign colours. Just wishing they'd do it properly, and I could have it so my Templar marines aren't still called "Blood Ravens".

You know an easy way to accomplish what you asked (the second part) is dont have people refer to the chapter name.

ie. no "Blood Ravens we must do this..." or "Glad to see you are here Ultarmarine" (DoW/SM problems)

simply saying battle brothers and Space Marines would allow people to play as any chapter they want through mods without annoying problems. Add the ability to customize your force before hand and you have just cut down on a huge number of complaints with very little extra work required.

Hourn wrote:
What I DON'T want to see is the Blood Ravens. So tired of them now.

Unfortunately for you, the Blood Ravens have always been the poster boys of the DoW series, much as the Ultramarines are for 'vanilla' marines. The Blood Ravens were originally designed specifically for the DoW series, with their storyline being 'adopted' by GW.

Yeah, the Blood Ravens were engineered by Relic so they wouldn't have to step on any GW toes in concerns to fluff.

 Brother SRM wrote:
Yeah, the Blood Ravens were engineered by Relic so they wouldn't have to step on any GW toes in concerns to fluff.

The Blood Ravens were still cool, even though they had captains with hair-gel stronger than baneblades, or had ungodly horrible voices.

 madman12367 wrote:
I would love to see 'MAKE YOUR OWN MAP' be in there, there are some really old games that has that and it's a nice little bit to add on.

But there is one, Worldbuilder was in one of the DOW2 updates.

 ace101 wrote:

 Brother SRM wrote:
Yeah, the Blood Ravens were engineered by Relic so they wouldn't have to step on any GW toes in concerns to fluff.

The Blood Ravens were still cool, even though they had captains with hair-gel stronger than baneblades, or had ungodly horrible voices.

I like the Blood Ravens a lot. If I had a reason to paint up an army of them, I'd be on it pretty quickly. I do enjoy the camp factor with a lot of their characters though, even if it's not strictly intentional.

-Campaign with Blood Ravens, Angelos as Chapter Master.

-All races for multiplayer ( and I mean all races ).

-further customization options:
-a way to upload my own symbol in game and use it for my army.
-more freedom with painting, instead of giving me certain areas to paint - freedom to use mouse to select any aread I want and paint it.

-more skirmish/multiplayer options:
-modes for small games and large games ( battle and Apocalypse )
-Titans in Apocalypse with large number of troops/vehicles.

-Wargear options for commanders and army in general.

-MOST IMPORTANT: freedom to choose subrace in race ( For example I choose Imperium of Man and select Imperial Guard. The computer gives me options for choose Cadians, Krieg or Catachans. Depending on who I choose I get that army + their unique units/abilities. Same for everyone else. )

This is a long shot but basically what I would want to see in new and improved DoW.

 Brother Captain Alexander wrote:
-Campaign with Blood Ravens, Angelos as Chapter Master.

-All races for multiplayer ( and I mean all races ).

-further customization options:
-a way to upload my own symbol in game and use it for my army.
-more freedom with painting, instead of giving me certain areas to paint - freedom to use mouse to select any aread I want and paint it.

-more skirmish/multiplayer options:
-modes for small games and large games ( battle and Apocalypse )
-Titans in Apocalypse with large number of troops/vehicles.

-Wargear options for commanders and army in general.

-MOST IMPORTANT: freedom to choose subrace in race ( For example I choose Imperium of Man and select Imperial Guard. The computer gives me options for choose Cadians, Krieg or Catachans. Depending on who I choose I get that army + their unique units/abilities. Same for everyone else. )

This is a long shot but basically what I would want to see in new and improved DoW.

When would you like to see this game and for how much money?

There is a reason why DoW and many games have only a couple races at the start and add more as they release expansions. Money, time, and balance.

Its always annoys me when someone says they want the game to contain everything under the sun. Please be a bit more reasonable in your expectations (this post wasnt even that bad, Ive seen worse, like someone who wanted DoW 3 to INCLUDE FPS elemets like from battlefield AND multiplayer campaigns and 7- races

Base building, all races (think soulstorm), apocalypse, steel legion or somthing besides cadians. ALL THE KAOS!!!
More Chornholio the cultist, und have some artillery.
Titans would be nice :p


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galdos wrote:

 Brother Captain Alexander wrote:
-Campaign with Blood Ravens, Angelos as Chapter Master.

-All races for multiplayer ( and I mean all races ).

-further customization options:
-a way to upload my own symbol in game and use it for my army.
-more freedom with painting, instead of giving me certain areas to paint - freedom to use mouse to select any aread I want and paint it.

-more skirmish/multiplayer options:
-modes for small games and large games ( battle and Apocalypse )
-Titans in Apocalypse with large number of troops/vehicles.

-Wargear options for commanders and army in general.

-MOST IMPORTANT: freedom to choose subrace in race ( For example I choose Imperium of Man and select Imperial Guard. The computer gives me options for choose Cadians, Krieg or Catachans. Depending on who I choose I get that army + their unique units/abilities. Same for everyone else. )

This is a long shot but basically what I would want to see in new and improved DoW.

When would you like to see this game and for how much money?

There is a reason why DoW and many games have only a couple races at the start and add more as they release expansions. Money, time, and balance.

Its always annoys me when someone says they want the game to contain everything under the sun. Please be a bit more reasonable in your expectations (this post wasnt even that bad, Ive seen worse, like someone who wanted DoW 3 to INCLUDE FPS elemets like from battlefield AND multiplayer campaigns and 7- races

Yeah most of us want MOAR but really I think that it would be best to use the old base building along with that nice gear to put to all of your units. I felt like DoW2 lacked alot of units on the field at once.

People need to understand that games don't have unlimited budgets or development cycles, because there's some pretty unreasonable ideas going around on this page.

Better names.
"Gabriel Angelos"? Really?

 Brother SRM wrote:
People need to understand that games don't have unlimited budgets or development cycles, because there's some pretty unreasonable ideas going around on this page.

You mean it's not possible to have a game that's both a 40k version of COD, scaling up to DOW1 scale, then scaling up again to total war, then scaling up again to universe level? Surely not.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Macok wrote:
Better names.
"Gabriel Angelos"? Really?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabriel#New_Testament

 Testify wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabriel#New_Testament

Oh, that makes it a very, very, very good name... or does it?

Depends. The Angel Gabriel is a pretty big part of the nativity. Being Polish I'm surprised you've not heard of him (I assume you are Polish).

 Macok wrote:
Better names.
"Gabriel Angelos"? Really?

Problem? It fits very well: Gabriel Angelos, the Emperor's Angel of Death.

I want to see Dawn of War 3 before I start to recite what I want from it

I guess my internet-fu was a weak and I failed to deliver the message.
I do know who Gabriel is and that is exactly why I dislike the name.

It's along the lines of Canis Wolfborn walking around in Wolfsocks and having Wolfhaircut. So the theme is.. cats?
I guess next Eldar Farseer will be Nostradamus Futurus son of Clairvoyancion the Farseeing from the Craftworld Divinium. Because, you know, seeing into future *wink* *wink*

That would only make sence if Gabriel went to Mary and told her she was pregnant with the saviour of mankind.

Rather than walking around stomping Chaos.

What? Pregnancies don't happen in 40k. What are you talking about?

 Macok wrote:

I do know who Gabriel is and that is exactly why I dislike the name.

Just what is your problem with Angelos? Apart from Davian COOL, he's the most awesome character in DoW.

Tadashi wrote:Just what is your problem with Angelos? Apart from Davian COOL, he's the most awesome character in DoW.

I think he was not referring to the character per se, but the name. I mean ... you have the Space Marines, they are the Angels of Death, and here we have a (supposed) successor of the Blood Angels, led by a guy by the name of Gabriel Angelos. And Gabriel is an angel in real world mythology. And for some people, "bad" names can sully the character they are attached to, even if everything else would have been okay. A cliché name can work like some sort of cliché multiplier that pushes everything else over the edge, I guess.

At least that's what I'm getting from Macok's Wolfwolfwolf and Nostradamus-Farseer comparison.

/shrug

Personally, I still like the name, but even for me it is borderline OTT. It's still in my comfort zone, but only just so (primarily because I think "Gabriel" is a cool name in general).

Brother Captain Alexander wrote:- Campaign with Blood Ravens, Angelos as Chapter Master.
-All races for multiplayer ( and I mean all races ).

Ugh, please no. Every playable race should have its own campaign. Are fans of other armies just SOL because they buy a product just for multiplayer?
I think the expansion thingie from DoW1 worked out quite well for introducing additional races. Keep it that way.

 Lynata wrote:

Brother Captain Alexander wrote:- Campaign with Blood Ravens, Angelos as Chapter Master.
-All races for multiplayer ( and I mean all races ).

Ugh, please no. Every playable race should have its own campaign. Are fans of other armies just SOL because they buy a product just for multiplayer?
I think the expansion thingie from DoW1 worked out quite well for introducing additional races. Keep it that way.

Yes please. I want Angelos to lead the Blood Ravens on a quest to find their true origins, and, depending on the player's actions, either ends with the Chapter being accepted or rejected by the Imperium.

 Tadashi wrote:

 Lynata wrote:

Brother Captain Alexander wrote:- Campaign with Blood Ravens, Angelos as Chapter Master.
-All races for multiplayer ( and I mean all races ).

Ugh, please no. Every playable race should have its own campaign. Are fans of other armies just SOL because they buy a product just for multiplayer?
I think the expansion thingie from DoW1 worked out quite well for introducing additional races. Keep it that way.

Yes please. I want Angelos to lead the Blood Ravens on a quest to find their true origins, and, depending on the player's actions, either ends with the Chapter being accepted or rejected by the Imperium.

Pretty boring for non-SM players. It would essentially be Space Marine - the RTS.

I actually like marines in general but blood ravens are meh. Space Marines are supposed to be the armoured demi-gods who crush Chaos beneath their feet. Why is their computer game poster boy borderline heretic?

 Testify wrote:

 Tadashi wrote:

 Lynata wrote:

Brother Captain Alexander wrote:- Campaign with Blood Ravens, Angelos as Chapter Master.
-All races for multiplayer ( and I mean all races ).

Ugh, please no. Every playable race should have its own campaign. Are fans of other armies just SOL because they buy a product just for multiplayer?
I think the expansion thingie from DoW1 worked out quite well for introducing additional races. Keep it that way.

Yes please. I want Angelos to lead the Blood Ravens on a quest to find their true origins, and, depending on the player's actions, either ends with the Chapter being accepted or rejected by the Imperium.

Pretty boring for non-SM players. It would essentially be Space Marine - the RTS.

I actually like marines in general but blood ravens are meh. Space Marines are supposed to be the armoured demi-gods who crush Chaos beneath their feet. Why is their computer game poster boy borderline heretic?

Because tragic characters who walk the edge of damnation/heroism are more interesting than Mary Sues. I want something like Chaos Rising/Mass Effect - if the player chooses certain missions, favors certain individuals/artifacts/decisions, then either the Imperium just hides the truth and accepts the Blood Ravens as they are, or they are declared excommunicate traitoris. And once again depending on those same factors, if they are declared traitors, the Blood Ravens either go willingly into the Warp/Eye of Terror, or go out ala Thousand Sons - they fight to protect themselves only to go into the Warp in the end regardless.

I fail to see how anyone who isn't morally ambiguous is a "mary sue".

 Testify wrote:
I fail to see how anyone who isn't morally ambiguous is a "mary sue".

...

Your previous post indicated (at least to me) a classic protagonist/s - heroic individuals who's actions and motivations are predictably what you would expect from Astartes.

I have only ever heard the term "mary sue" on this forum, but it was my understanding that it was

a fictional character with overly idealized and hackneyed mannerisms, lacking noteworthy flaws, and primarily functioning as a wish-fulfillment fantasy for the author or reader.

That's not a "typical" space marine.

 Testify wrote:
I have only ever heard the term "mary sue" on this forum, but it was my understanding that it was

a fictional character with overly idealized and hackneyed mannerisms, lacking noteworthy flaws, and primarily functioning as a wish-fulfillment fantasy for the author or reader.

That's not a "typical" space marine.

No...but that's not what Blood Ravens are. And I would like to see them go on a soul-searching quest for their origins, during which their actions will also decide their ultimate fate. The Imperium and the Emperor forever, or the serpentine comet and the Crimson King triumphant.

They're portrayed as being kind of on the edge to make them somewhat interesting and different from other chapters. It also lets things like the morality system get implemented and have an effect on the story. I like it. The Dawn of War series belongs to the Blood Ravens, and whether or not we get campaigns for everyone or just Space Marines, I hope they remain the Marine chapter for the campaign. I actually like their story.

And Gabriel Angelos? More like Gabriel Angelowns.

 Tadashi wrote:

 Lynata wrote:

Brother Captain Alexander wrote:- Campaign with Blood Ravens, Angelos as Chapter Master.
-All races for multiplayer ( and I mean all races ).

Ugh, please no. Every playable race should have its own campaign. Are fans of other armies just SOL because they buy a product just for multiplayer?
I think the expansion thingie from DoW1 worked out quite well for introducing additional races. Keep it that way.

Yes please. I want Angelos to lead the Blood Ravens on a quest to find their true origins, and, depending on the player's actions, either ends with the Chapter being accepted or rejected by the Imperium.

Oh god that would actually be hillarious. Its one thing for a single commander to go traitor but the entire chapter being told feth off by the Imperium because how you played would be kind of cool.


However I would like to see at least a few campaigns. An Imperium/Chaos/Ork and maybe one more faction doesnt seem unreasonable. Expansions would include 2 more campaigns of different races?

 Galdos wrote:

 Tadashi wrote:

 Lynata wrote:

Brother Captain Alexander wrote:- Campaign with Blood Ravens, Angelos as Chapter Master.
-All races for multiplayer ( and I mean all races ).

Ugh, please no. Every playable race should have its own campaign. Are fans of other armies just SOL because they buy a product just for multiplayer?
I think the expansion thingie from DoW1 worked out quite well for introducing additional races. Keep it that way.

Yes please. I want Angelos to lead the Blood Ravens on a quest to find their true origins, and, depending on the player's actions, either ends with the Chapter being accepted or rejected by the Imperium.

Oh god that would actually be hillarious. Its one thing for a single commander to go traitor but the entire chapter being told feth off by the Imperium because how you played would be kind of cool.


However I would like to see at least a few campaigns. An Imperium/Chaos/Ork and maybe one more faction doesnt seem unreasonable. Expansions would include 2 more campaigns of different races?

Nothing wrong with giving other races their own unique campaigns. While I want the Blood Ravens go soul-searching, I want to see a young, Tau Commander get sent into the Farsight Enclaves. He has two objectives:

1) Defeat Farsight and reunite his forces with the empire.
2) Find out why he rebelled in the first place.

Once again, your decisions will have an impact on the ending - either you remain loyal to the empire, or end up joining Farsight in the end.

Oh god that would be awsome.

Though GW wouldnt let you do that.

I would buy that game if it was Tau only just to answer that. (Whatever helps farsight, hurts the Tau, which makes the Imperium in me happy)

 Galdos wrote:
Oh god that would be awsome.

Though GW wouldnt let you do that.

I would buy that game if it was Tau only just to answer that. (Whatever helps farsight, hurts the Tau, which makes the Imperium in me happy)

Why wouldn't they? The canon ending would simply have the young and anonymous Tau Commander joining Farsight (which would be the ending I would aim for if this game became reality).

EDIT: WHATEVER HAPPENS, DON'T LET EA MAKE THE GAME!

 Tadashi wrote:

 Galdos wrote:
Oh god that would be awsome.

Though GW wouldnt let you do that.

I would buy that game if it was Tau only just to answer that. (Whatever helps farsight, hurts the Tau, which makes the Imperium in me happy)

Why wouldn't they? The canon ending would simply have the young and anonymous Tau Commander joining Farsight (which would be the ending I would aim for if this game became reality).

EDIT: WHATEVER HAPPENS, DON'T LET EA MAKE THE GAME!

I meant the finding the reason why he is doing it statement

 Galdos wrote:

 Tadashi wrote:

 Galdos wrote:
Oh god that would be awsome.

Though GW wouldnt let you do that.

I would buy that game if it was Tau only just to answer that. (Whatever helps farsight, hurts the Tau, which makes the Imperium in me happy)

Why wouldn't they? The canon ending would simply have the young and anonymous Tau Commander joining Farsight (which would be the ending I would aim for if this game became reality).

EDIT: WHATEVER HAPPENS, DON'T LET EA MAKE THE GAME!

I meant the finding the reason why he is doing it statement

Jeers and boos...perhaps if it coincides with the release of a new Tau codex, it might happen. Good publicity.

 Brother SRM wrote:
They're portrayed as being kind of on the edge to make them somewhat interesting and different from other chapters. It also lets things like the morality system get implemented and have an effect on the story. I like it. The Dawn of War series belongs to the Blood Ravens, and whether or not we get campaigns for everyone or just Space Marines, I hope they remain the Marine chapter for the campaign. I actually like their story.

And Gabriel Angelos? More like Gabriel Angelowns.

Except if the "different" chapter becomes the "generic", then the goalposts have just shifted. Meh.

I just don't see the point in having a good and evil in the game...and having the good borderline evil. Thank the God-Emperor for the Imperial Guard

What I want in Dawn Of War 3? I want a decent campagin and a multiplayer that rewards tactical thinking instead of what we have in the current version of DoW 2. I would also like to see a limit on how many of a certain unti type one can build/ train. It would cut back spam and force players to take strategy into acount and not just who can churn out the most Tac squads with plasma guns or mobs of Ork Nobs

 Trondheim wrote:
What I want in Dawn Of War 3? I want a decent campagin and a multiplayer that rewards tactical thinking instead of what we have in the current version of DoW 2. I would also like to see a limit on how many of a certain unti type one can build/ train. It would cut back spam and force players to take strategy into acount and not just who can churn out the most Tac squads with plasma guns or mobs of Ork Nobs

I can only assume you're an Operational Art of War III player. Fancy a game?

You want tactical thinking and yet you don't want it to be like DoW2, which involves a lot of tactical thinking?

Vague nonsense and little more.

Considering you were bashing on DOW1 for being derpy and arcadish that's pretty rich.

Unless your definition of bash is "saying it isn't the greatest game ever", I wouldn't say I've bashed it at all.

Not that you give a damn, you're just making gak up anyway.

I just insalled and played DOW1... it's awesome; I can finally build Defilers! I was getting a bit bored with DOW2 due to not having many units, or having much tactical value apart from shoot/ assault and then run away and rely on luck in many cases. It seems like DOW2 was built for the Skirmish crowds even though 40k is about epic scale battles, which IMO is the reason why it got boring for me pretty quick and doesn't work as a game.

What I'd like to see in DOW3 is a change back to the DOW1 style, with bigger army builds, more units and better looking maps. They really don't need to make the graphics any better; you are going to be zoomed out most of the time so it doesn't really matter if you cannot see the wrinkles on a space marine's face or the plaque on an Ork Boy's teeth. Also lower graphics would be a godsend to theaverage joe who has a mid-range computing device and help cut down on lagging in online multiplayer.

 MetalOxide wrote:
I just insalled and played DOW1... it's awesome; I can finally build Defilers! I was getting a bit bored with DOW2 due to not having many units, or having much tactical value apart from shoot/ assault and then run away and rely on luck in many cases. It seems like DOW2 was built for the Skirmish crowds even though 40k is about epic scale battles, which IMO is the reason why it got boring for me pretty quick and doesn't work as a game.

Sums up my thoughts exactly.

They really need to bring back large battles from DoW 1 into DoW 3...
If I enjoyed something it's storming with 50+ Guardsmen, 2 Leman Russes and a Baneblade while covering from two Basilisks.

I don't ask much, they cna even leave DoW 2 graphic. Just add little more races ( like Lynata said it could be done via expansions ) and larger army's.

But what I am more interested with is this "customize your own army" option.

Testify wrote:

 Trondheim wrote:
What I want in Dawn Of War 3? I want a decent campagin and a multiplayer that rewards tactical thinking instead of what we have in the current version of DoW 2. I would also like to see a limit on how many of a certain unti type one can build/ train. It would cut back spam and force players to take strategy into acount and not just who can churn out the most Tac squads with plasma guns or mobs of Ork Nobs

I can only assume you're an Operational Art of War III player. Fancy a game?

I must admidt I have never heard of that game, but will make a point to check it out. Thank you for the tip and yes perhaps one day I will fancy a game

Melissia wrote:You want tactical thinking and yet you don't want it to be like DoW2, which involves a lot of tactical thinking?

Vague nonsense and little more.

Since the web is a free place you are of chourse free to regard the game in that way. But knowing how you think about other people who dont agree with you I do not wish to get into a debate with you.

 Trondheim wrote:
But knowing how you think about other people who dont agree with you

You don't know, making this statement pointless.

Regardless, rather than talking about me, let's stay on topic.

DoW2 was very much a tactical game. Position, facing, actual cover, suppression fire, etc all are greatly more important than in many older games, such as DoW1 (and, before the inevitable "you just hate dow1" complaints come in, I would also say that, DoW1 has them be much more important than other older games such as Command and Conquer and the 'Craft series). In fact, I would go so far as to say that the game is made or broken on tactical decisions more than strategic ones, making it a very tactics-focused game. A more strategic game would be something like RUSE or Wargame: European Escalation-- the long term matters more in those games than in DoW2. But I digress, the point is, your statement about DoW2 not being tactical is so wrong that it's as if you're not even talking about the same game.

I don't mind DoW3 being tactical, but I think many people on this forum would prefer it to find a better balance between DoW2's focus on tactics and a more long-term strategic approach. It can be argued that DoW1 had that balance, which is why many people still love it to this day (I like it, I just happen to like DoW2 more).

 Melissia wrote:

I don't mind DoW3 being tactical, but I think many people on this forum would prefer it to find a better balance between DoW2's focus on tactics and a more long-term strategic approach. It can be argued that DoW1 had that balance, which is why many people still love it to this day (I like it, I just happen to like DoW2 more).

I am "many people" in this case. I just would prefer DoW2's gameplay over DoW1's A-move and swarm tactics (with a little selective targeting) and I like using positioning, facing, terrain, and so on. You can shoot through most of the terrain in DoW1 for chrissakes. I love me some Dawn of War 1 (I'm thinking of replaying the games actually) but I just dig DoW2's art direction and gameplay so much more. I can see the appeal of DoW1's massive battles though, even if they come at the cost of tactics most of the time. It makes for better spectacle, which is what a lot of people seem to want. I still think there's a happy medium to be found.

If you want a tactical game, try Hearts of Iron 3:



or the Operation Art of War:



Or somesuch.

There's a big difference between "I want to play a game where unit positioning, facing, and terrain matter" and "turn based grognard historical boardgame but on a computer" dude.

I dunno if I could call that tactical. Too large scale and not enough focus on actual unit tactics.

Brother SRM wrote:There's a big difference between "I want to play a game where unit positioning, facing, and terrain matter" and "turn based grognard historical boardgame but on a computer" dude.

...did you like Fallout Tactics by any chance?

Melissia wrote:I dunno if I could call that tactical. Too large scale and not enough focus on actual unit tactics.

That's true they're strategic more than tactical.

Not saying they're bad mind you.

Although my experiences with Hearts of Iron has been anything but good (mostly because every time I do my friends try to bug me to install some buggy software or other to play multiplayer with them)....

I only play Darkest Hour anyway, HOI3 is gak. Waaay too complex.

 Testify wrote:
I only play Darkest Hour anyway, HOI3 is gak. Waaay too complex.

Agreed, there were so many features in 2 that they mad worse in 3.

What we need is a second series. One that does the squad based dow2 style stuff, and then a larger scale RTS style - bigger than dow1, because that wasn't large enough scale for me to really get into.
Need Supreme Commander to have a baby with 40k. But with space battles.

I'm really intrigued by DOW2's "heroic" RTS now, and will probably
play it once I'm off my XCOM kick.

What I'd like to see would be a game that comprised of building
massive battle forces and positioning them correctly on a map.
Epic the way it was meant to be played kind of thing.

 djphranq wrote:

You'd be able to move fleets from galaxy to galaxy and have huge scale space battles. In each galaxy there would be a number of planets you could conquer/occupy.

Um, theres only one known galaxy in the 40K universe. am i the only one who noticed this?

Well First I want to see if it even comes out...
Ever.

 malfred wrote:

What I'd like to see would be a game that comprised of building
massive battle forces and positioning them correctly on a map.
Epic the way it was meant to be played kind of thing.

Hearts of Iron, but in space.

After the sale of Relic some DoW 3 info surfaced. It is rumoured to have begun development (but only just) and its scale was liked to 40K Apocalypse. That could be nothing more than heresay and even if true may well be scrapped/rethought,although the DoW3 domain name was transfered over to Sega as part of the sale.

Varguard Erekh wrote:

 djphranq wrote:

You'd be able to move fleets from galaxy to galaxy and have huge scale space battles. In each galaxy there would be a number of planets you could conquer/occupy.

Um, theres only one known galaxy in the 40K universe. am i the only one who noticed this?

Maybe he meant Solar system?


However his suggestion would make a gakky Dawn of War 3

A good 40k game but considering DoW has always been about land battles this looks like its unfaithful to the previous games.
It would make a great game but not a Dawn of War game

 Galdos wrote:

Varguard Erekh wrote:

 djphranq wrote:

You'd be able to move fleets from galaxy to galaxy and have huge scale space battles. In each galaxy there would be a number of planets you could conquer/occupy.

Um, theres only one known galaxy in the 40K universe. am i the only one who noticed this?

Maybe he meant Solar system?


However his suggestion would make a gakky Dawn of War 3

A good 40k game but considering DoW has always been about land battles this looks like its unfaithful to the previous games.
It would make a great game but not a Dawn of War game

Wait just a second there! IMO, that sounds somewhat cool. that was one of the things i liked about EaW. Well, that and the cinematic camera lol

 MetalOxide wrote:
I just insalled and played DOW1... it's awesome; I can finally build Defilers! I was getting a bit bored with DOW2 due to not having many units, or having much tactical value apart from shoot/ assault and then run away and rely on luck in many cases. It seems like DOW2 was built for the Skirmish crowds even though 40k is about epic scale battles, which IMO is the reason why it got boring for me pretty quick and doesn't work as a game.

What I'd like to see in DOW3 is a change back to the DOW1 style, with bigger army builds, more units and better looking maps. They really don't need to make the graphics any better; you are going to be zoomed out most of the time so it doesn't really matter if you cannot see the wrinkles on a space marine's face or the plaque on an Ork Boy's teeth. Also lower graphics would be a godsend to theaverage joe who has a mid-range computing device and help cut down on lagging in online multiplayer.

Shameless plug time

If you are enjoying DoW you might like to partake in this

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/502292.page

I personally play a modded soulstorm at the moment, the graphics aren't as good but for me it's so much more fun because it's large scale.it would be amazing to combine the epic dawn of war 2 with soulstorm to create an aweome large scale warzone!

Have any of you ever played Star Wars: Empire at War?
If you haven't, basically the campaign was galatic, like soulstorm. You would requisition fleets (Tie Fighters, Star Destroyers, X-wings, Crusiers etc) and use them to fight space battles and destroy the enemy fleet above their planet. Sometimes a space station. Once you had control of the space of that system, you could launch a ground invasion. You would send in the ground troops you had trained (AT-AT, Stormtroopers, Rebel Soldier, etc) and fight whatever forces the enemy had on the planet in one rts battle. You could only have a certain amount of your army on the field at once, an amount determined by the amount of points you had. etc etc once you win you earn more money and you buy more troops in the campaign map. you get the idea. galactic domination.

DoWIII could have the epic space battles between space marines and Necrons, then the humongous invasions of a hive fleet on an imperial garrison. Add in the unit style of Total War and you will have a very interesting game