What is the truth of Dawn of War 3, a day doesn't go by without me thinking on how awesome it would be to have a large Dark Crusade type campaign with Tau in the newest version of the DoW2 engine.
Automatically Appended Next Post: From the article:
The game is expected to ship between August 2012 and Febuary 2013. It is scheduled for a full reveal at Gamescom 2012.
orkybenji is correct, the publisher no longer exists. Relic was bought by Sega, but whether or not they still plan on making dow3 has not been announced.
Orblivion wrote: orkybenji is correct, the publisher no longer exists. Relic was bought by Sega, but whether or not they still plan on making dow3 has not been announced.
So what...all that work already done is scrapped??
Isn't that poor business, wouldn't Sega benefit from funding already existing work than start something new?
Orblivion wrote: orkybenji is correct, the publisher no longer exists. Relic was bought by Sega, but whether or not they still plan on making dow3 has not been announced.
So what...all that work already done is scrapped?? Isn't that poor business, wouldn't Sega benefit from funding already existing work than start something new?
Orblivion wrote: orkybenji is correct, the publisher no longer exists. Relic was bought by Sega, but whether or not they still plan on making dow3 has not been announced.
So what...all that work already done is scrapped??
Isn't that poor business, wouldn't Sega benefit from funding already existing work than start something new?
They might still be working on it, they just haven't told anyone one way or the other. I wouldn't get your hopes up though.
So what...all that work already done is scrapped??
Isn't that poor business?
Games get scrapped all the time. For example, Fallout 3 (Van Buren) was about 90% done when Bethesda bought the property from Interplay and ordered it scrapped so they could make their own version of Fallout 3, which is the one that came out in 2008. They often get scrapped before that point, but it happens regularly.
As for whether or not what's there is scrapped? We don't know. Games get delayed, and losing your publisher is kind of a big setback, so for all we know it' still on track for some release point in the future, but we still don't really know. I'd probably be even more stoked for Dawn of War 3 than most people around here, but there's no news or reliable rumors about the game coming out.
ChakLong wrote: At least Sega has no problems with Relic developing a Total War-style game for Warhammer Fantasy.
I wouldn't mind seeing a 40K Total War game coming out in the future.
40k Total War would be terrible. I'd rather see a better version of DoW 2 with combat at the same level of the earlier CoH games - multiple squads/tanks, base building, resources, etc.
xghostmakerx wrote: Any game based on DOW2 is bound to be a failure. They need to bring back the play mechanics of DOW1. Not that was a great game!
Yes, removing base building in DoW2 was a really bad decision, it made the game feel impoverished despite everything else being better...graphics, animations, physics, RPG-like progression.
And remember that predator tank in the first couple of missions of the campaign, it was scripted to be destroyed, the only fething tank you get in the whole game.
40k Total War would be terrible. I'd rather see a better version of DoW 2 with combat at the same level of the earlier CoH games - multiple squads/tanks, base building, resources, etc.
Totally agree, all those Total War games looked dreadful. It would be a huge step backwards.
40k Total War would be terrible. I'd rather see a better version of DoW 2 with combat at the same level of the earlier CoH games - multiple squads/tanks, base building, resources, etc.
Totally agree, all those Total War games looked dreadful. It would be a huge step backwards.
What looks terrible about this?
Yeah it's Rome: Total War from 2004, but just think if you mixed that level of combat with these graphics (minimally)
Cyten wrote: Yes, removing base building in DoW2 was a really good decision, it made the game feel less like a clunky starcraft clone, which added to the awesomeness of the game's better graphics, animations, physics, RPG-like progression, storytelling, voice acting, and just about everything else that matters.
Fixed that for you.
But more seriously, is this thread going to devolve in to a "DoW1 players complain that they didn't get a DoW1 clone as a sequel" before we even hit the second page?
I like Dawn of War 2 much more than the first series, mini base building makes no sense for 40k and was useless anyway, don't think it's mandatory for the game - but they could've made some forward teleport homers for reinforcements so not everything have to walk through the whole map all the time.
Really hope DoW3 comes out, <3 the Dawn of War series, especially Dawn of War 2 and expansions. Base building is a clunky and unrealistic mechanic that needs to die already. Total War and Ground control pioneered alternate styles of RTS gameplay, and it was good to see Dawn of War 2 follow one of them - though I was happy to see more units being involved again in retribution, even if the campaign was lacklustre due to using the same scenarios for multiple races. That still allowed us to play multiple races in the campaign though which was a worthwhile trade-off imo.
CoH2 I haven't bought despite CoH1 being one of my favourite games. It didn't seem worth full price for what seemed like an expansion rather than a new game. I hope DoW doesn't get the same treatment, but the engine is great for 40kimo.
It's not an accurate representation of gameplay, it's a marketing shot. Also it's not fitting for sci-fi combat, it wasn't even good for early gunpowder age combat, empire and napoleon were easily the worst total war games. I used to love total war, but creative assembly have butchered the series with their focus on metacritic and arcade gameplay over deep gameplay and tactical combat.
Yonan wrote: Really hope DoW3 comes out, <3 the Dawn of War series, especially Dawn of War 2 and expansions. Base building is a clunky and unrealistic mechanic that needs to die already. Total War and Ground control pioneered alternate styles of RTS gameplay, and it was good to see Dawn of War 2 follow one of them
Well at least then you should be able to deploy armor and other things via dropships instead of walking around with a couple of guys through the whole campaign.
I'd love to see buildings that COULD be constructed, like over relic points and the like that allow for in the field recruitment. Along with more defensive placements.
ChakLong wrote: At least Sega has no problems with Relic developing a Total War-style game for Warhammer Fantasy.
I wouldn't mind seeing a 40K Total War game coming out in the future.
There is no Total War-style game for Warhammer Fantasy from Relic. Creative Assembly, the actual Total War developers, is also owned by Sega and they are making a Total War: Warhammer, or Total Warhammer as I like to call it.
I'd love to see buildings that COULD be constructed, like over relic points and the like that allow for in the field recruitment. Along with more defensive placements.
This. My main gripe with DoW2 (don't get me wrong, love the games, but it) is that getting units takes a long time. Having multiple buildings dedicated to constructing units of a particular type would be enough for me. Also, being able to place a power node-like building on requisition points would be nice to solidify them.
Yonan wrote: Total War and Ground control pioneered alternate styles of RTS gameplay, and it was good to see Dawn of War 2 follow one of them
Total War do have the base building thing. It is just one thing that you have a separate map for it.
And Ground Control was abysmal with its economy-less game structure. I've played its multiplayer and it was Helydine Spam 24/7 with occasional Liberator Rush N00bs. There is a reason why Starcraft 2 kept the base building system.
Melissia wrote: Which you were capable of doing in Retribution.
For me the Retribution campaign was completely destroyed once I realized you could lose infinite number of units with no consequences whatsoever, you had 1:1 ratio of requisition/power regained for any unit lost.
(I play all games in such a way to never lose any unit and still..)
It made everything meaningless, sometimes you get shocked how stupid game developers can be.
ChakLong wrote: At least Sega has no problems with Relic developing a Total War-style game for Warhammer Fantasy.
I wouldn't mind seeing a 40K Total War game coming out in the future.
The total war formula gets broken by about the WW1 stage of warfare where automatic weapons fire rendered massed bricks of infantry obsolete and off map indirect artillery starts coming into play.
Orblivion wrote: There is no Total War-style game for Warhammer Fantasy from Relic. Creative Assembly, the actual Total War developers, is also owned by Sega and they are making a Total War: Warhammer, or Total Warhammer as I like to call it.
I was pretty much waiting for someone to correct me.
The total war formula gets broken by about the WW1 stage of warfare where automatic weapons fire rendered infantry obsolete and off map indirect artillery starts coming into play.
I can totally see where you are getting it. Perhaps they wouldn't exactly label it as "Total War" and keep the mechanics of the game series identical, but it would still be great to see 40K games with an epic scale and on campaign maps like in the Total War series, or even similar to Dark Crusade/Soulstorm. Wars for Armageddon anyone?
When I said "40K Total War", I didn't mean a developer should just copy/paste the Total War formula and replace the unit models with things from 40K, I was really trying to just get at the scale of the games. 40K really shouldn't be just about small squad combat like in DoW 2. It is also a reason why 40K Apocalypse exists.
Cyten wrote: For me the Retribution campaign was completely destroyed once I realized you could lose infinite number of units with no consequences whatsoever, you had 1:1 ratio of requisition/power regained for any unit lost.
(I play all games in such a way to never lose any unit and still..)
It made everything meaningless, sometimes you get shocked how stupid game developers can be.
The last boss battle wasn't even a boss battle. I just used the high population cap and infinite requisition to spam Assault Marines and have them jump around and swing their chainswords around. Fairly majestic seeing 50 assault marines jumping simultaneously.
They should have just kept with the DoW 2 and Dow 2 Chaos Rising formula. I played Space Marines first for the campaign, and it really just didn't make sense how I could spare so many tactical marines who just run suicidally at the objective when the chapter is supposed to be in ruins. Not to mention the story for all races was much weaker because they decided it would be a great idea to not focus on one narrative but several. The story just wasn't as strong as DoW 2 or DoW 2 Chaos Rising, and was pretty much what Soulstorm was like. The voice acting and stories were weaker, and actual story bits were also much less frequent.
Orblivion wrote: There is no Total War-style game for Warhammer Fantasy from Relic. Creative Assembly, the actual Total War developers, is also owned by Sega and they are making a Total War: Warhammer, or Total Warhammer as I like to call it.
I was pretty much waiting for someone to correct me.
The total war formula gets broken by about the WW1 stage of warfare where automatic weapons fire rendered infantry obsolete and off map indirect artillery starts coming into play.
I can totally see where you are getting it. Perhaps they wouldn't exactly label it as "Total War" and keep the mechanics of the game series identical, but it would still be great to see 40K games with an epic scale and on campaign maps like in the Total War series, or even similar to Dark Crusade/Soulstorm. Wars for Armageddon anyone?
When I said "40K Total War", I didn't mean a developer should just copy/paste the Total War formula and replace the unit models with things from 40K, I was really trying to just get at the scale of the games. 40K really shouldn't be just about small squad combat like in DoW 2. It is also a reason why 40K Apocalypse exists.
Wait crap, I meant *massed* infantry bricks obsolete.
Whoops.
And there are ways to get grand strategy/grand tactics hybrids like Total war to work with post automatic weapons and BVR artillery based warfare.
The grand strategy galactic map of say Galactic civilizations II, which zooms in to say...Empire at War level for solar system and planetary level warfare, which then zooms into a Supreme Commander style battle map for ground warfare and Sins of a Solar Empire for space battles.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Any way I think it's fair to say most 40k fans want to be able to play out battles like this on their computer.
If they do a DOW3, I only ask for proper sized squads. None of this, "half sized squads". I want full and proper squads. With the options of course to field larger squads/broods/mobs. And let's not forget the squadrons of vehicles.
DoW1 was great, but then we got Dawn of Squad Command. If that's what you like, then that's ok, but it's not what I signed up for. Some people like less, are happy with less, and enjoy less.
Orblivion wrote: orkybenji is correct, the publisher no longer exists. Relic was bought by Sega, but whether or not they still plan on making dow3 has not been announced.
So what...all that work already done is scrapped??
Isn't that poor business, wouldn't Sega benefit from funding already existing work than start something new?
Because it's not that easy. How much staff was lost in the transition, and how difficult would it be to slot new people in and get them up to speed? How does this game fit into the style and type of games they want to put work into, or were they more interested in other aspects of Relic's properties? What state was the project in when they got their hands on it? If it was a total mess that was going to take a huge investment of man hours to straighten out, it just might not have made financial sense to keep on going. It just would've been money going down a hole.
I hope they stay as far away from Dawn of War 1 as possible. I've put tons of time into that game, but it's very, very dated, and playing it now is a chore. It's not a game that reward strategy, unit choices, or anything really. You just build a bunch of X and attack move them to the other guy. One army wins and it's game over. There's no maneuvering, there's no real incentive to keep your guys alive or retreat, and there's no give and take with the battlefield. It's sort of neat to watch your spacemen fight each other, but it's a horridly boring game.
Dawn of War 2's multiplayer when it was at its peak was probably the most fun I've ever had with a competitive online game. Up through Retribution, I loved the hell out of that game.I wouldn't mind Dawn of War 3 being larger in scale so long as it maintained some semblance of strategy, tactics, and battlefield dynamics. Base building is also really out of place in 40k if you ask me, even if a lot of the building designs were very cool looking.
Brother SRM wrote: I hope they stay as far away from Dawn of War 1 as possible. I've put tons of time into that game, but it's very, very dated, and playing it now is a chore. It's not a game that reward strategy, unit choices, or anything really. You just build a bunch of X and attack move them to the other guy. One army wins and it's game over. There's no maneuvering, there's no real incentive to keep your guys alive or retreat, and there's no give and take with the battlefield. It's sort of neat to watch your spacemen fight each other, but it's a horridly boring game.
Dawn of War 2's multiplayer when it was at its peak was probably the most fun I've ever had with a competitive online game. Up through Retribution, I loved the hell out of that game.I wouldn't mind Dawn of War 3 being larger in scale so long as it maintained some semblance of strategy, tactics, and battlefield dynamics. Base building is also really out of place in 40k if you ask me, even if a lot of the building designs were very cool looking.
I'd like to see some kind of "company builder" outside of direct combat for dow3. Similar to an army list in the tabletop you decide what units are deployed for each mission from your strike cruiser. Once deployed the battles play out like dow2.
dawn of war 2 was pretty crapy. A really crapy RPG and a really crapy strategy game. its fun for a couple hours, then you see how thin the gameplay is.
kb305 wrote: dawn of war 2 was pretty crapy. A really crapy RPG and a really crapy strategy game. its fun for a couple hours, then you see how thin the gameplay is.
DOW 1 was much better
How was DoW 2 a "crapy" strategy game? I've never heard anyone who didn't like Dawn of War 2 say anything aside from "it wasn't Dawn of War 1" as far as criticism goes. God forbid they tried something different and interesting!
I'd like to see some kind of "company builder" outside of direct combat for dow3. Similar to an army list in the tabletop you decide what units are deployed for each mission from your strike cruiser. Once deployed the battles play out like dow2.
kb305 wrote: dawn of war 2 was pretty crapy. A really crapy RPG and a really crapy strategy game. its fun for a couple hours, then you see how thin the gameplay is.
DOW 1 was much better
How was DoW 2 a "crapy" strategy game? I've never heard anyone who didn't like Dawn of War 2 say anything aside from "it wasn't Dawn of War 1" as far as criticism goes. God forbid they tried something different and interesting!
I'd like to see some kind of "company builder" outside of direct combat for dow3. Similar to an army list in the tabletop you decide what units are deployed for each mission from your strike cruiser. Once deployed the battles play out like dow2.
Orblivion wrote: There is no Total War-style game for Warhammer Fantasy from Relic. Creative Assembly, the actual Total War developers, is also owned by Sega and they are making a Total War: Warhammer, or Total Warhammer as I like to call it.
I was pretty much waiting for someone to correct me.
The total war formula gets broken by about the WW1 stage of warfare where automatic weapons fire rendered infantry obsolete and off map indirect artillery starts coming into play.
I can totally see where you are getting it. Perhaps they wouldn't exactly label it as "Total War" and keep the mechanics of the game series identical, but it would still be great to see 40K games with an epic scale and on campaign maps like in the Total War series, or even similar to Dark Crusade/Soulstorm. Wars for Armageddon anyone?
When I said "40K Total War", I didn't mean a developer should just copy/paste the Total War formula and replace the unit models with things from 40K, I was really trying to just get at the scale of the games. 40K really shouldn't be just about small squad combat like in DoW 2. It is also a reason why 40K Apocalypse exists.
Wait crap, I meant *massed* infantry bricks obsolete.
Whoops.
And there are ways to get grand strategy/grand tactics hybrids like Total war to work with post automatic weapons and BVR artillery based warfare.
The grand strategy galactic map of say Galactic civilizations II, which zooms in to say...Empire at War level for solar system and planetary level warfare, which then zooms into a Supreme Commander style battle map for ground warfare and Sins of a Solar Empire for space battles.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Any way I think it's fair to say most 40k fans want to be able to play out battles like this on their computer.
I couldn't keep a straight face once the giant gobs of aircraft started bumping into each other in that video... that looks like one heck of a game.
Also I personally hate any strategy game where producing new units is difficult/time consuming...mostly just because I like seeing the battlefield strewn with destroyed units and combat with lots of deaths on both sides doesn't really happen in that kind of game. I'm perfectly happy with a stalemate type of game where you're producing units as quickly as possible to hold a line in the middle of the map, and if one player makes a mistake or does some kind of unexpected maneuver then you break the stalemate and push the line forwards a bit before it stabilizes again.
kb305 wrote: dawn of war 2 was pretty crapy. A really crapy RPG and a really crapy strategy game. its fun for a couple hours, then you see how thin the gameplay is.
DOW 1 was much better
How was DoW 2 a "crapy" strategy game? I've never heard anyone who didn't like Dawn of War 2 say anything aside from "it wasn't Dawn of War 1" as far as criticism goes. God forbid they tried something different and interesting!
I'd like to see some kind of "company builder" outside of direct combat for dow3. Similar to an army list in the tabletop you decide what units are deployed for each mission from your strike cruiser. Once deployed the battles play out like dow2.
Kind of like Total War? I'd be down with that.
it's crapy because it's hero hammer. the characters are very overpowered while the troops are very very weak.
i only played on max difficulty and i quickly learned to not bother building regular troops, they do next to nothing and die in seconds.
DOW 1 the regular troops have more character than the actual characters in DOW 2. DOW1 had really awesome sounds effects, troop voices and felt alot more epic.
i only played on max difficulty and i quickly learned to not bother building regular troops, they do next to nothing and die in seconds.
Exactly.
That's the second reason why Retribution campaign was so bad, original and Chaos Rising were so much better despite not being able to unlock and field any army units. They really blew it with Retribution, when I first heard it would have unlockable army and be more like Dark Crusade I was very excited, but the whole implementation was ruined.
dementedwombat wrote: I couldn't keep a straight face once the giant gobs of aircraft started bumping into each other in that video... that looks like one heck of a game.
Also I personally hate any strategy game where producing new units is difficult/time consuming...mostly just because I like seeing the battlefield strewn with destroyed units and combat with lots of deaths on both sides doesn't really happen in that kind of game. I'm perfectly happy with a stalemate type of game where you're producing units as quickly as possible to hold a line in the middle of the map, and if one player makes a mistake or does some kind of unexpected maneuver then you break the stalemate and push the line forwards a bit before it stabilizes again.
It's called Supreme Commander, and it sounds like your kind of game.
Micromanagement is nice but not necessary. This game is all about massive scale with realistic combat ranges and attritional warfare on scales that most video games cannot even begin to match. This is an RTS with a heavy bolding on strategy whereas games like Command and Conquer and Starcraft are more about tactics.
It's fairly old, coming from the era of 2007, where it shared Crysis' position as one of the most computer melting games of an era known for computer melting games. But it's very enjoyable and has an excellent standalone expansion pack in Forged Alliance.
The story is about humanity having split into three. The UEF, based from Earth, the Cybernetics loving Cybran tired of being treated as second class citizens, and the Aeon Illuminate, who were taught "The Way" by aliens known as the Seraphim which preaches peace and unity. The UEF is pretty fascistic, the Cybrans skew dangerously to anarchism, and the Aeon Illuminate is divided into the "actual pacifist" and the "PEACE THROUGH POWER!" groups.
The ability to transmute mass into other forms of matter and energy into matter along with really, really high end 3D printing means that warfare is now fought on scales never before imagined, and their method of FTL, which involves creating gates between two points, makes space ships dumb as power needs mean it's simpler to just teleport from one planet to another. The new method of warfare also obsoleted infantry entirely as war is now fought entirely with colossal death engines where 155mm automatic cannons are the most basic of armaments.
Simply put, any infantry on the battlefield dies hilariously in a battlefield with that much firepower, and when war breaks out, it breaks out in a big way. The only organics work in large mecha called command units who coordinate the battles fought by endless waves of drones. For a thousand years the three have decimated the galaxy in the infinite war, but wait! It turns out that the Seraphim, believed killed by the xenophobic UEF, actually just left the universe.
The Seraphim believe only one species can follow the way, and a huge chunk of them permanently cut themselves off from the way to begin the purge. Some Aeon still side with them even though the Seraphim will kill them in the end because they believe the Seraphim to be holy.
It has much more story than it's spiritual predecessor Total Annihilation, and was sadly followed up by the abomination that is Supreme Commander 2 with it's reduced scale, massive dumbing down, and actually worse graphics and story.
Oh and those little mechs you see? They're the size of Warhound titans.
Yes please...everything you just described sounds like pure distilled awesome to me. I think I found a new game to take the "strategy mantle" on my Youtube channel once I finish the original XCOM (playing that game blind is kicking my butt...but I digress).
I just hope my computer can manage it. I glanced at the system requirements and it looks like my 3 year old laptop walks all over everything but the graphics requirement, where it just squeaks in at the minimum...of course it is a strategy game, so low graphics detail and single digit framerates are totally fine right (spoken as someone who plays Borderlands and enjoys it at ~15fps without noticing anything wrong)?
Orblivion wrote: There is no Total War-style game for Warhammer Fantasy from Relic. Creative Assembly, the actual Total War developers, is also owned by Sega and they are making a Total War: Warhammer, or Total Warhammer as I like to call it.
I was pretty much waiting for someone to correct me.
The total war formula gets broken by about the WW1 stage of warfare where automatic weapons fire rendered infantry obsolete and off map indirect artillery starts coming into play.
I can totally see where you are getting it. Perhaps they wouldn't exactly label it as "Total War" and keep the mechanics of the game series identical, but it would still be great to see 40K games with an epic scale and on campaign maps like in the Total War series, or even similar to Dark Crusade/Soulstorm. Wars for Armageddon anyone?
When I said "40K Total War", I didn't mean a developer should just copy/paste the Total War formula and replace the unit models with things from 40K, I was really trying to just get at the scale of the games. 40K really shouldn't be just about small squad combat like in DoW 2. It is also a reason why 40K Apocalypse exists.
Wait crap, I meant *massed* infantry bricks obsolete.
Whoops.
And there are ways to get grand strategy/grand tactics hybrids like Total war to work with post automatic weapons and BVR artillery based warfare.
The grand strategy galactic map of say Galactic civilizations II, which zooms in to say...Empire at War level for solar system and planetary level warfare, which then zooms into a Supreme Commander style battle map for ground warfare and Sins of a Solar Empire for space battles.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Any way I think it's fair to say most 40k fans want to be able to play out battles like this on their computer.
Oh God. Supreme Commander: Warhammer 40k would be so awesome. That's why it won't happen, but it'd be awesome.
dementedwombat wrote: Yes please...everything you just described sounds like pure distilled awesome to me. I think I found a new game to take the "strategy mantle" on my Youtube channel once I finish the original XCOM (playing that game blind is kicking my butt...but I digress).
I just hope my computer can manage it. I glanced at the system requirements and it looks like my 3 year old laptop walks all over everything but the graphics requirement, where it just squeaks in at the minimum...of course it is a strategy game, so low graphics detail and single digit framerates are totally fine right (spoken as someone who plays Borderlands and enjoys it at ~15fps without noticing anything wrong)?
Check more of Spaz Production's SupCom videos if you want to see more Supreme Commander videos like that.
The game is a huge spectacle for the eyes, and it's very mod friendly.
I in fact, think that there's a 40k mod in the works for it.
Orblivion wrote: There is no Total War-style game for Warhammer Fantasy from Relic. Creative Assembly, the actual Total War developers, is also owned by Sega and they are making a Total War: Warhammer, or Total Warhammer as I like to call it.
I was pretty much waiting for someone to correct me.
The total war formula gets broken by about the WW1 stage of warfare where automatic weapons fire rendered infantry obsolete and off map indirect artillery starts coming into play.
I can totally see where you are getting it. Perhaps they wouldn't exactly label it as "Total War" and keep the mechanics of the game series identical, but it would still be great to see 40K games with an epic scale and on campaign maps like in the Total War series, or even similar to Dark Crusade/Soulstorm. Wars for Armageddon anyone?
When I said "40K Total War", I didn't mean a developer should just copy/paste the Total War formula and replace the unit models with things from 40K, I was really trying to just get at the scale of the games. 40K really shouldn't be just about small squad combat like in DoW 2. It is also a reason why 40K Apocalypse exists.
Wait crap, I meant *massed* infantry bricks obsolete.
Whoops.
And there are ways to get grand strategy/grand tactics hybrids like Total war to work with post automatic weapons and BVR artillery based warfare.
The grand strategy galactic map of say Galactic civilizations II, which zooms in to say...Empire at War level for solar system and planetary level warfare, which then zooms into a Supreme Commander style battle map for ground warfare and Sins of a Solar Empire for space battles.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Any way I think it's fair to say most 40k fans want to be able to play out battles like this on their computer.
Oh God. Supreme Commander: Warhammer 40k would be so awesome. That's why it won't happen, but it'd be awesome.
True scale apocalypse and Epic 40k games on your computer!
Assuming it's circuits don't get a heart attack in the process of rendering the carnage.
it's crapy because it's hero hammer. the characters are very overpowered while the troops are very very weak.
i only played on max difficulty and i quickly learned to not bother building regular troops, they do next to nothing and die in seconds.
DOW 1 the regular troops have more character than the actual characters in DOW 2. DOW1 had really awesome sounds effects, troop voices and felt alot more epic.
Two P's in "crappy" buddy. Also, "alot" isn't a word.
So you only played the campaign of Retribution and never even played the multiplayer, which is what the game was built around. Well there you go. And how do the DoW1 troops have more character than the characters in DoW2? I'm not saying they don't have character, I'm just curious why you'd mean that. The sound effects and music especially are excellent in DoW2 and its expansions.
So you only played the campaign of Retribution and never even played the multiplayer, which is what the game was built around.
Statistics show that most players only play RTS campaigns and AI skirmish which is of course expected because competitive modes are inherently stressful.
Also The Last Stand mode with Tau commander is much better than the multiplayer, this is because it is co-op.
Co-op is always more enjoyable in every genre, just take a look at Mass Effect 3.
Cyten wrote: Well, don't have girly avatars if you don't want people to swap your gender.
Im sorry what? I wonder what sort of logic they use where you hail from
In a more serious tone, if you ever played the campagin. And never multi player your arguments are basicly worthless. Granted there was a lot do be desired from the MP in the latest DoW 2 games, but it was and still is some of the best RTS moments I have had the pleasure of having. And your hero hammer argument really dont hold up when you look at multi player. Send your hero in alone and watch him/her/ it get torn appart. No mather their level or upgrades
SupCom 1 and 2 were good in my eyes, each worked differently from the other.
But playing UEF reminds me a lot of the IG.
build lots of arty, Beat enemy into submission through a constant rain of rounds.
I think the only way to truly grasp 40ks scale would be the strangest hybrid of Company of heroes (aka Dow2 cover and such), total war/SupCom scale.
legions of troops on the ground able to ttake cover in buildings or around corpses of war machines while enormous titans, tanks and more blast each othe rinto oblivion all while arty rains down on everyones head and aircraft zip around the fray.
Would be a computer melting game at full throttle but I think if done correctly it would be epic....
last I recall the Total War guys (their name escapes me) has the Fantasy Warhammer lisence and the 40k one is elsewhere (I can't recall with who). Too bad we can't get a 40k Total war :(
it's crapy because it's hero hammer. the characters are very overpowered while the troops are very very weak.
i only played on max difficulty and i quickly learned to not bother building regular troops, they do next to nothing and die in seconds.
DOW 1 the regular troops have more character than the actual characters in DOW 2. DOW1 had really awesome sounds effects, troop voices and felt alot more epic.
Two P's in "crappy" buddy. Also, "alot" isn't a word.
So you only played the campaign of Retribution and never even played the multiplayer, which is what the game was built around. Well there you go. And how do the DoW1 troops have more character than the characters in DoW2? I'm not saying they don't have character, I'm just curious why you'd mean that. The sound effects and music especially are excellent in DoW2 and its expansions.
that's great, was my spelling so bad you couldnt understand what i was saying or are you just being a dick?
I never played the multiplayer.
the voices and portraits for the troops in DOW1 were awesome, they were very grimdark and full of character. The troops in DOW1 had more character than the characters in DOW2. DOW2 felt more bland and generic.
Statistics show that most players only play RTS campaigns and AI skirmish which is of course expected because competitive modes are inherently stressful.
Also The Last Stand mode with Tau commander is much better than the multiplayer, this is because it is co-op.
Co-op is always more enjoyable in every genre, just take a look at Mass Effect 3.
Well, I would have played the AI skirmish more, but unless you're on Very Hard the AI in DoWII doesn't put up a good challenge, and only then it does it through cheating, like every RTS AI set to Very Hard. Granted, the AI in Dawn of War 1 is awful too, and just flat out ignores critical objectives, which is all the DoW2 AI cares about. DoW 2 is unique in that the campaign and the skirmish are completely different games though. I've played against the AI with a buddy of mine a bit recently and we had a good time though. I put in about 150 hours of playing against human opponents between the three DoW2 expansions, and had an absolute blast with it. It could be stressful, but never as stressful as Starcraft. I've ended Starcraft games in the shakes which is a bit too much for me!
And Mass Effect 3's multiplayer is way, way too grindy for me. Co op is fun, horde mode is just a meatgrinder which gets old pretty quickly. The Last Stand never appealed to me as much more than a distraction for that reason. I know it's some peoples' thing though.
I'd like to see DOW3 continue what DOW2 started, yet touch it up because DOW2 needed some major improvement.
For me, it was very choppy and this messed with the micro of the game, which off set the point of all the special commands.
The idea behind it however was awesome, leveling up your commander, and troops for that matter the longer you kept them alive.
I was ok with the fact that base building was minimized, because the emphasis was on the army combat, but the choppy-ness and honestly stupidity of the AI made you want to be able to base build more.
A balanced online play would be cool too, once your enemy took a small lead in the capture of resources it was pretty much over.. go ahead call me noob but playing starcraft and not having that issue shows that it could use a touch up.
Mix DOW2 with Age of Mythology, now thats what would really capture both army combat that every 40k player wants and a bit of empire construction that the RTS player enjoys.
that's great, was my spelling so bad you couldnt understand what i was saying or are you just being a dick?
I never played the multiplayer.
the voices and portraits for the troops in DOW1 were awesome, they were very grimdark and full of character. The troops in DOW1 had more character than the characters in DOW2. DOW2 felt more bland and generic.
And double post time!
Yeah, I was being a dick. I'm pedantic, so sue me.
If you never played the multiplayer, you missed out on what I find to be the most fun I've ever had with an RTS, or 40k game in general. It's a shame the community just isn't there anymore, but that's the problem with multiplayer games years and years later.
The portraits for troops in DoW1? Those were tiny, low resolution blocks. That's a pretty minor niggling point, but they're better in DoW2 by nature of the UI being less cluttered and having more room, but I wouldn't hold that against the first game. And DoW2 doesn't play like any other RTS out there (with some influence from Company of Heroes, but it's still unique), I'd hardly say it's bland or generic. Meanwhile, DoW1 is "build house to build dudes, build dudes, throw at other dudes" until you have more dudes than the other guy. There's no need to think about positioning or tactics. Enough heavy bolters will kill anything.
that's great, was my spelling so bad you couldnt understand what i was saying or are you just being a dick?
I never played the multiplayer.
the voices and portraits for the troops in DOW1 were awesome, they were very grimdark and full of character. The troops in DOW1 had more character than the characters in DOW2. DOW2 felt more bland and generic.
And double post time!
Yeah, I was being a dick. I'm pedantic, so sue me.
If you never played the multiplayer, you missed out on what I find to be the most fun I've ever had with an RTS, or 40k game in general. It's a shame the community just isn't there anymore, but that's the problem with multiplayer games years and years later.
The portraits for troops in DoW1? Those were tiny, low resolution blocks. That's a pretty minor niggling point, but they're better in DoW2 by nature of the UI being less cluttered and having more room, but I wouldn't hold that against the first game. And DoW2 doesn't play like any other RTS out there (with some influence from Company of Heroes, but it's still unique), I'd hardly say it's bland or generic. Meanwhile, DoW1 is "build house to build dudes, build dudes, throw at other dudes" until you have more dudes than the other guy. There's no need to think about positioning or tactics. Enough heavy bolters will kill anything.
It helps that they ruined the strategy they had come dark crusade when they removed Fire on the Move. Oh yes, thank you for dropping it from 50% down to 10% accuracy, my defilers THANK you for the accuracy issue, let alone making the assault gun dread useless. Not to mention overbuffing Eldar so badly that they had units that out-tanked terminators!
DOW I is what got me into the whole universe to begin with, And i'll still play it on occasion, like everything It had it's flaws sure, but it's still an amazing experiance each time I start another game. And despite it being almost a decade old ,I still i find it to be of superior quality compared to some of the stuff that is released.
That said, I've come a long way since first picking up DoW, I acuired all the expansions and couldn't wait for DoW II and it's expansions as well. I liked DoW II as well, it's a step in an interesting new direction, very different from it's predecessor, which is why I don't think it's fair to compare each game side by side, aside from being from 2 totally different video game era's, the games are so fundamentally different in their core features, that comparing them in such a way will lead to nothing of value.
DoW III? Let's hope they'll design it by once again stepping in a new direction. I would regret having to see the developers getting trapped within a fake paradigm in which DoW I and DoW II are two extremes, because that's absolutly not the case.
DoW1 was, too to a great extent, especially in the campaign. The difference is that DoW2 requires actual strategy, where DoW1 does not.
kb305 wrote: i only played on max difficulty and i quickly learned to not bother building regular troops, they do next to nothing and die in seconds.
This is making gak up 101.
I won the Ork campaign through using essentially nothing but a gigantic mob of Ork Boyz and the veteran units that replaced the commanders. They kicked ass. Maybe you're just not a good player?
Now that relic have the CoH2 engine I am sure they will use that to kick off DoW3, They did say in an interview that they were putting everything in to CoH2 but had not forgotten about the DoW series and would be working on it again.
This was after the the whole purchase from Sega as well.
DoW1 was, too to a great extent, especially in the campaign. The difference is that DoW2 requires actual strategy, where DoW1 does not.
kb305 wrote: i only played on max difficulty and i quickly learned to not bother building regular troops, they do next to nothing and die in seconds.
This is making gak up 101.
I won the Ork campaign through using essentially nothing but a gigantic mob of Ork Boyz and the veteran units that replaced the commanders. They kicked ass. Maybe you're just not a good player?
I won via venom cannons from warriors and carnifexes when I wanted to do a very hard speed run.
The Imperial guard gets slightly worse but still hilarious results from melta stormies, plasma/flamer guardsmen, and Vanquisher rushes (seriously, that rapid fire glitch thing is awesome).
Daston wrote: Now that relic have the CoH2 engine I am sure they will use that to kick off DoW3, They did say in an interview that they were putting everything in to CoH2 but had not forgotten about the DoW series and would be working on it again.
This was after the the whole purchase from Sega as well.
COH2 is made on the same engine as COH and DOW2. It has been upgraded a couple of times but it is still the same engine.
Also, do you have a source for this statement from them? As far as I know they haven't made any mentions of Dawn of War since they were bought by Sega.
I personally loved dawn of war 2, I've played through 3 campaigns so far, and really it is what got me into TT. The characters are awesome (If I ever make an ork army, it will be freebootaz, because kap'n bludflagg just rocked the whole game)
I also played the original dawn of war prior to playing part 2, and honestly the game is a crock. It was released in 2004, and is pretty much a clone of C&C:RA, and Warcraft 1/2/starcraft. Just because you rename/reskin the farms doesn't make them not a farm. There was even an armory, the same exact kind of turrets and everything. I liked the Gabriel Angelos storyline, but I never played much past the original game, I got to maybe the second mission in winter assault. I mean if you have to copy every gameplay aspect of a game made ten years before yours, you have stale gameplay in my opinion.
Anyway, I'm sure I'll get flamed for calling out DoW for what it is, but it is my opinion
Niexist wrote: I personally loved dawn of war 2, I've played through 3 campaigns so far, and really it is what got me into TT. The characters are awesome (If I ever make an ork army, it will be freebootaz, because kap'n bludflagg just rocked the whole game)
I also played the original dawn of war prior to playing part 2, and honestly the game is a crock. It was released in 2004, and is pretty much a clone of C&C:RA, and Warcraft 1/2/starcraft. Just because you rename/reskin the farms doesn't make them not a farm. There was even an armory, the same exact kind of turrets and everything. I liked the Gabriel Angelos storyline, but I never played much past the original game, I got to maybe the second mission in winter assault. I mean if you have to copy every gameplay aspect of a game made ten years before yours, you have stale gameplay in my opinion.
Anyway, I'm sure I'll get flamed for calling out DoW for what it is, but it is my opinion
C&C is not like DoW at all.
DoW's big innovation was actually starting the trend towards squad based combat with a lesser emphasis on resource gathering and building sprawling fortresses for bases.
C&C is perhaps the most turtle happy big sprawling base series with a huge emphasis on resource gathering you can get without going right to Total Annihilation-esque RTS games.
You don't know "impregnable" until you try to assault a well dug in Nod base in Tib Wars.
Niexist wrote: I personally loved dawn of war 2, I've played through 3 campaigns so far, and really it is what got me into TT. The characters are awesome (If I ever make an ork army, it will be freebootaz, because kap'n bludflagg just rocked the whole game)
I also played the original dawn of war prior to playing part 2, and honestly the game is a crock. It was released in 2004, and is pretty much a clone of C&C:RA, and Warcraft 1/2/starcraft. Just because you rename/reskin the farms doesn't make them not a farm. There was even an armory, the same exact kind of turrets and everything. I liked the Gabriel Angelos storyline, but I never played much past the original game, I got to maybe the second mission in winter assault. I mean if you have to copy every gameplay aspect of a game made ten years before yours, you have stale gameplay in my opinion.
Anyway, I'm sure I'll get flamed for calling out DoW for what it is, but it is my opinion
C&C is not like DoW at all.
DoW's big innovation was actually starting the trend towards squad based combat with a lesser emphasis on resource gathering and building sprawling fortresses for bases.
C&C is perhaps the most turtle happy big sprawling base series with a huge emphasis on resource gathering you can get without going right to Total Annihilation-esque RTS games.
You don't know "impregnable" until you try to assault a well dug in Nod base in Tib Wars.
I gotta say, Supreme Commander takes this. After 7 hours of gameplay, when your (and your opponents) shield arrays are so dense tactical nukes can't penetrate, and the space between the two bases is a wasteland of twisted metal, streams of nukes hitting shields and being shot down by defence stations, and tech.3 tanks moving out on both sides to be instantly slagged by triple walls of artillery.... Aircraft brought down by swarms of missiles that block out the sun! And if any ship is unlucky enough to make it inside the shield wall, the ocean lights up with torpedo fire. And in the near impossible event that anything makes it past the artillery, laser batteries await.
You don't know hell, till you turtle in SupCom. (Seriously - waves of 80 nukes, still not enough.)
Niexist wrote: I personally loved dawn of war 2, I've played through 3 campaigns so far, and really it is what got me into TT. The characters are awesome (If I ever make an ork army, it will be freebootaz, because kap'n bludflagg just rocked the whole game)
I also played the original dawn of war prior to playing part 2, and honestly the game is a crock. It was released in 2004, and is pretty much a clone of C&C:RA, and Warcraft 1/2/starcraft. Just because you rename/reskin the farms doesn't make them not a farm. There was even an armory, the same exact kind of turrets and everything. I liked the Gabriel Angelos storyline, but I never played much past the original game, I got to maybe the second mission in winter assault. I mean if you have to copy every gameplay aspect of a game made ten years before yours, you have stale gameplay in my opinion.
Anyway, I'm sure I'll get flamed for calling out DoW for what it is, but it is my opinion
C&C is not like DoW at all.
DoW's big innovation was actually starting the trend towards squad based combat with a lesser emphasis on resource gathering and building sprawling fortresses for bases.
C&C is perhaps the most turtle happy big sprawling base series with a huge emphasis on resource gathering you can get without going right to Total Annihilation-esque RTS games.
You don't know "impregnable" until you try to assault a well dug in Nod base in Tib Wars.
Okay fine, warcraft was a ripoff of C&C, and DoW was a copy of Warcraft. All of the buildings are equivalent, each force has resource gatherer's, population maxes that must use a farm equivalent to be increased. It even has fog of war. That's like saying SW:TOR is nothing like WoW because it is in space.
There's definitely potential, I expect them to go back to the DOW1 route of large cinematic battles over the squad-based combat in DOW2.
Hopefully more of the "attrition" battles, fighting wave after wave of AI units and gradually inching your way towards the objective was what made Dark Crusade so awesome on the HQ battles. I actually lost these fairly often because the AI swarms you with a horde of units as soon as you arrive, and you need to make sure you've come prepared. DOW3 should seek to make more moments like this, and less bland generic province fights.
Kain wrote: That's one thing that mystifies me about newer RTS games, the seeming irrational hatred for turtling.
How is it irrational? Do you want to waste an hour of your life trying to win a game you had effectively won long before but have to waste huge amounts of time smashing forces into your opponent again, and again, and again? I just find it funny when people complain about turtling and zerg rushing in the same sentence.
I'm a famous turtler. It all started when I was a kid playing Warcraft 2. I had this irrational idea that in order to complete the mission I had to build exactly 1 of every building available to me on that mission, then research every upgrade, then build one of every unit, then actually try to win (and fail miserably because one of every maxed out unit is a horrible army).
That absurdity has gone, but I still like to have my units maxed out on upgrades before I go on offense.
Also the more I hear about this Supreme Commander game the more I want to play it. I assume the AI never goes to such absurd defensive lengths in the single player campaign, and having that kind of defense available to me while I take all the time in the world to upgrade sounds nice (although maybe not fun to watch). Just have to add, any game where the red and black spider leg robot faction is actually the good guys has to be fine by me.
xruslanx wrote: There's definitely potential, I expect them to go back to the DOW1 route of large cinematic battles over the squad-based combat in DOW2.
To be fair, we saw an inkling of that in first DoW2 campaign's defense missions, that dreadnaught barrage with explosive shells was just beautiful.
All defense missions were very intense and enjoyable. Now imagine that level of visual fidelity put to Dark Crusade/Soulstorm's stronghold maps and other special global ability maps.
There is very little that needs to be done to make a fantastic DoW3 except to combine best elements from all of the series.
Kain wrote: That's one thing that mystifies me about newer RTS games, the seeming irrational hatred for turtling.
How is it irrational? Do you want to waste an hour of your life trying to win a game you had effectively won long before but have to waste huge amounts of time smashing forces into your opponent again, and again, and again? I just find it funny when people complain about turtling and zerg rushing in the same sentence.
Turtling and digging in is as valid a tactic as early game rushes. And some people happen to enjoy WW1 style warfare where massive armies beat each other senseless against virtually impregnable defence lines.
dementedwombat wrote: I'm a famous turtler. It all started when I was a kid playing Warcraft 2. I had this irrational idea that in order to complete the mission I had to build exactly 1 of every building available to me on that mission, then research every upgrade, then build one of every unit, then actually try to win (and fail miserably because one of every maxed out unit is a horrible army).
That absurdity has gone, but I still like to have my units maxed out on upgrades before I go on offense.
Also the more I hear about this Supreme Commander game the more I want to play it. I assume the AI never goes to such absurd defensive lengths in the single player campaign, and having that kind of defense available to me while I take all the time in the world to upgrade sounds nice (although maybe not fun to watch). Just have to add, any game where the red and black spider leg robot faction is actually the good guys has to be fine by me.
Oh no, it doesn't, but the A.I can be quite challenging.
Also, like many newer RTS games, you can also set the A.I player's personality as well as their difficulty level. Additionally, you can decide whether it is allowed to cheat or not.
Games Workshop went from $5million in royalties in 2012 to barely over $1million in 2013. That huge decrease was because of DoW and Space Marine effects wearing off.
You bet your bottom dollar they're going to get another one going!
Niexist wrote: I personally loved dawn of war 2, I've played through 3 campaigns so far, and really it is what got me into TT. The characters are awesome (If I ever make an ork army, it will be freebootaz, because kap'n bludflagg just rocked the whole game)
I also played the original dawn of war prior to playing part 2, and honestly the game is a crock. It was released in 2004, and is pretty much a clone of C&C:RA, and Warcraft 1/2/starcraft. Just because you rename/reskin the farms doesn't make them not a farm. There was even an armory, the same exact kind of turrets and everything. I liked the Gabriel Angelos storyline, but I never played much past the original game, I got to maybe the second mission in winter assault. I mean if you have to copy every gameplay aspect of a game made ten years before yours, you have stale gameplay in my opinion.
Anyway, I'm sure I'll get flamed for calling out DoW for what it is, but it is my opinion
C&C is not like DoW at all.
DoW's big innovation was actually starting the trend towards squad based combat with a lesser emphasis on resource gathering and building sprawling fortresses for bases.
C&C is perhaps the most turtle happy big sprawling base series with a huge emphasis on resource gathering you can get without going right to Total Annihilation-esque RTS games.
You don't know "impregnable" until you try to assault a well dug in Nod base in Tib Wars.
Okay fine, warcraft was a ripoff of C&C, and DoW was a copy of Warcraft. All of the buildings are equivalent, each force has resource gatherer's, population maxes that must use a farm equivalent to be increased. It even has fog of war. That's like saying SW:TOR is nothing like WoW because it is in space.
Please tell me this is sarcasm, because LOL, calling every RTS proceeding C&C a 'ripoff' is like saying every truck after the model T is a 'ripoff'.
As for DoW 3? I'm hoping that they take the good things from both games (and their xpacs) and combine them. DoW2 felt like a mod for CoH, a game I despise, which initially annoyed me. But as the campaign went on, the xpacs came out, and multiplayer was tweaked, I found myself having a great deal of fun. DoW1 was a blast as well, the giant armies, the hilariously awesome melee combat, the campaign was pretty badass too. But, onward and upward yeah?
I'll put out a little disclaimer in that while I think Dawn of War 1 is a fairly uninteresting and strategy-less slugfest of a game, I absolutely loved it when it came out. It's very of its time, and its time was closing in on a decade ago. It's just aged very, very poorly. However, I don't really see how it's a clone of Starcraft or Command and Conquer. Starcraft is a very math-heavy game, very twitch-based, and built around limited resource territory. Dawn of War is heavy on randomization (accuracy and damage percentages for one), much slower paced, and while the resources decay over time, you can't strip mine out a base area of minerals. The units come in squads instead of individual models and also have separate melee and ranged attacks with different values, which is something I can't recall seeing in RTS games before that point. Dawn of War 2 built on all these points and made them better, but I'll still give credit where it's due.
Kain wrote: That's one thing that mystifies me about newer RTS games, the seeming irrational hatred for turtling.
Turtling is like camping in that it isn't usually fun for the other players who aren't doing it. It also makes for a game without any dynamics, which isn't really fun. Fortifying a forward critical location with units or air dropped in bunkers or something is cool, but just building your fort at home while the other guy runs around the map unopposed isn't interesting. It's just prolonging the inevitable and, as someone who's been on both sides of the fort, it can feel an awful lot like you're wasting my time as an attacker.
Brother SRM wrote: I'll put out a little disclaimer in that while I think Dawn of War 1 is a fairly uninteresting and strategy-less slugfest of a game, I absolutely loved it when it came out. It's very of its time, and its time was closing in on a decade ago. It's just aged very, very poorly. However, I don't really see how it's a clone of Starcraft or Command and Conquer. Starcraft is a very math-heavy game, very twitch-based, and built around limited resource territory. Dawn of War is heavy on randomization (accuracy and damage percentages for one), much slower paced, and while the resources decay over time, you can't strip mine out a base area of minerals. The units come in squads instead of individual models and also have separate melee and ranged attacks with different values, which is something I can't recall seeing in RTS games before that point. Dawn of War 2 built on all these points and made them better, but I'll still give credit where it's due.
Kain wrote: That's one thing that mystifies me about newer RTS games, the seeming irrational hatred for turtling.
Turtling is like camping in that it isn't usually fun for the other players who aren't doing it. It also makes for a game without any dynamics, which isn't really fun. Fortifying a forward critical location with units or air dropped in bunkers or something is cool, but just building your fort at home while the other guy runs around the map unopposed isn't interesting. It's just prolonging the inevitable and, as someone who's been on both sides of the fort, it can feel an awful lot like you're wasting my time as an attacker.
So basically, you ignore the fact that all the buildings in the base are reskinned copies from warcraft? I won't even respond to the guy above you, and his lame attempts at trollings.
Dawn of war 2 on the other hand was a concept of game that hadn't been done to death, in fact I can't really think of another game that I have played with a similar setup. That's what I look for in my video games, something ORIGINAL, it's why I loved games like katamari, and the telltale games, "The walking dead". If you want to reskin a game, make ever so slight changes, because that's what you listed above, and call it a totally original masterpiece that is your business, but to me I see it for what it is.
Rule Number One is Be Polite. If you can't follow the rules you agreed to by making an account then you can't post here. Please keep this in mind before pushing the reply button.
Frankenberry wrote: I wasn't trolling you, I was pointing out how stupid you sound. According to you, everything that isn't DOW2 is a reskin/copy/repoff, which is wrong.
CoH was out before DoW2, same game. Myth was out before both, same game. DoW2 is a reskin of every squad-based RTS that came before it.
There, how stupid does that sound?
I'm not going to insult you, call you stupid or any other names as I originally wanted to, I'll just put you on ignore.
Niexist wrote: I personally loved dawn of war 2, I've played through 3 campaigns so far, and really it is what got me into TT. The characters are awesome (If I ever make an ork army, it will be freebootaz, because kap'n bludflagg just rocked the whole game)
I also played the original dawn of war prior to playing part 2, and honestly the game is a crock. It was released in 2004, and is pretty much a clone of C&C:RA, and Warcraft 1/2/starcraft. Just because you rename/reskin the farms doesn't make them not a farm. There was even an armory, the same exact kind of turrets and everything. I liked the Gabriel Angelos storyline, but I never played much past the original game, I got to maybe the second mission in winter assault. I mean if you have to copy every gameplay aspect of a game made ten years before yours, you have stale gameplay in my opinion.
Anyway, I'm sure I'll get flamed for calling out DoW for what it is, but it is my opinion
C&C is not like DoW at all.
DoW's big innovation was actually starting the trend towards squad based combat with a lesser emphasis on resource gathering and building sprawling fortresses for bases.
C&C is perhaps the most turtle happy big sprawling base series with a huge emphasis on resource gathering you can get without going right to Total Annihilation-esque RTS games.
You don't know "impregnable" until you try to assault a well dug in Nod base in Tib Wars.
Okay fine, warcraft was a ripoff of C&C, and DoW was a copy of Warcraft. All of the buildings are equivalent, each force has resource gatherer's, population maxes that must use a farm equivalent to be increased. It even has fog of war. That's like saying SW:TOR is nothing like WoW because it is in space.
Blizzard RTS games have a very distinct style from Command and Conquer's.
Small pop caps, heavy focus on micromanagement and tactics over C&C's emphasis on macromanagement and strategy. Base defenses tend not to be quite as strong whereas in C&C building a fortress to protect yourself while you prepare to drown everyone in mammoth tanks is a valid strategy. Blizzard games also tend to use the pop caps to punish people who rely on high end units, while until Starcraft II they used the unit select limit to punish those who overly relied on hordes.
Also, Blizzard RTS games tend to be decided by an early game rush and are usually over within fifteen or so minutes. Most command and conquer games can last a good half hour or more or so and feature larger scale battles and have a far lesser emphasis on "special abilities" and to date, not one C&C game has ever featured mana or anything remotely like it.
C&C effectively exists as a middle ground between the huge, total war slugging match style of play proferred by Sins of a Solar Empire and Supreme Commander, and the fast paced small scale skirmishes of Dawn of War 2 and Starcraft.
Dawn of War 2 is very much an extreme towards the small scale and fast paced battles, with Dawn of War 1 definitely being towards the smaller end of the scale.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Brother SRM wrote: I'll put out a little disclaimer in that while I think Dawn of War 1 is a fairly uninteresting and strategy-less slugfest of a game, I absolutely loved it when it came out. It's very of its time, and its time was closing in on a decade ago. It's just aged very, very poorly. However, I don't really see how it's a clone of Starcraft or Command and Conquer. Starcraft is a very math-heavy game, very twitch-based, and built around limited resource territory. Dawn of War is heavy on randomization (accuracy and damage percentages for one), much slower paced, and while the resources decay over time, you can't strip mine out a base area of minerals. The units come in squads instead of individual models and also have separate melee and ranged attacks with different values, which is something I can't recall seeing in RTS games before that point. Dawn of War 2 built on all these points and made them better, but I'll still give credit where it's due.
Kain wrote: That's one thing that mystifies me about newer RTS games, the seeming irrational hatred for turtling.
Turtling is like camping in that it isn't usually fun for the other players who aren't doing it. It also makes for a game without any dynamics, which isn't really fun. Fortifying a forward critical location with units or air dropped in bunkers or something is cool, but just building your fort at home while the other guy runs around the map unopposed isn't interesting. It's just prolonging the inevitable and, as someone who's been on both sides of the fort, it can feel an awful lot like you're wasting my time as an attacker.
You haven't lived until you've tried Trench Warfare, the Supreme Commander rendition.
So basically, you ignore the fact that all the buildings in the base are reskinned copies from warcraft? I won't even respond to the guy above you, and his lame attempts at trollings.
Dawn of war 2 on the other hand was a concept of game that hadn't been done to death, in fact I can't really think of another game that I have played with a similar setup. That's what I look for in my video games, something ORIGINAL, it's why I loved games like katamari, and the telltale games, "The walking dead". If you want to reskin a game, make ever so slight changes, because that's what you listed above, and call it a totally original masterpiece that is your business, but to me I see it for what it is.
Which are reskinned from Command and Conquer, which are reskinned from Dune. Right? A building that makes troops, a building that makes vehicles, and a building that upgrades said things are about as archetypical as guns that shoot bullets, buckshot, or rockets in first person shooters. They're kind of mainstays of the genre. I won't say Dawn of War 1 was "a totally original masterpiece" to borrow the words you put in my mouth, but it did have a lot original ideas and implementations of ideas.
So basically, you ignore the fact that all the buildings in the base are reskinned copies from warcraft? I won't even respond to the guy above you, and his lame attempts at trollings.
Dawn of war 2 on the other hand was a concept of game that hadn't been done to death, in fact I can't really think of another game that I have played with a similar setup. That's what I look for in my video games, something ORIGINAL, it's why I loved games like katamari, and the telltale games, "The walking dead". If you want to reskin a game, make ever so slight changes, because that's what you listed above, and call it a totally original masterpiece that is your business, but to me I see it for what it is.
Which are reskinned from Command and Conquer, which are reskinned from Dune. Right? A building that makes troops, a building that makes vehicles, and a building that upgrades said things are about as archetypical as guns that shoot bullets, buckshot, or rockets in first person shooters. They're kind of mainstays of the genre. I won't say Dawn of War 1 was "a totally original masterpiece" to borrow the words you put in my mouth, but it did have a lot original ideas and implementations of ideas.
Say SRM, would this be good for a 40kRTS?
With sup com style ground battles and sins of a solar empire style space battles all in the same map.
You can tell some nutty 40k player is going to try conquering the entire galaxy with some cripplingly disadvantaged faction like the Tau.
It still seems to have some basebuilding/mining stuff going on, which I don't really like the idea of in a 40k game. However, the battles going from space to planetary landings is very cool! Makes me wish Relic could have done some Homeworld-style space combat with Battlefleet Gothic ships.
So basically, you ignore the fact that all the buildings in the base are reskinned copies from warcraft? I won't even respond to the guy above you, and his lame attempts at trollings.
Dawn of war 2 on the other hand was a concept of game that hadn't been done to death, in fact I can't really think of another game that I have played with a similar setup. That's what I look for in my video games, something ORIGINAL, it's why I loved games like katamari, and the telltale games, "The walking dead". If you want to reskin a game, make ever so slight changes, because that's what you listed above, and call it a totally original masterpiece that is your business, but to me I see it for what it is.
Which are reskinned from Command and Conquer, which are reskinned from Dune. Right? A building that makes troops, a building that makes vehicles, and a building that upgrades said things are about as archetypical as guns that shoot bullets, buckshot, or rockets in first person shooters. They're kind of mainstays of the genre. I won't say Dawn of War 1 was "a totally original masterpiece" to borrow the words you put in my mouth, but it did have a lot original ideas and implementations of ideas.
The fact is warhammer 40k combat has nothing to do with base building at all, from what I've read, they generally move a huge amount of troops into existing structures, and fight. What I would have liked to see is a game that is based off of that premise rather than the premise that all RTS games must have a farm, a stronghold, a barracks, and an armory. What I see is game developers on dawn of war 1 take the easy way out, simply copy another persons idea.
It is like saint's row games, to me they're boring copies of grand theft auto, their whole premise is almost exactly the same as far as gameplay. The same thing can be said for any MMORPG made in the last 7 or 8 years, sure they might be slightly different from WoW, but the basic gameplay is a carbon copy! I want new gameplay, not the same rehashed idea with a couple of new things. Again, the warhammer 40k fluff I've read has NOTHING about base building, or training troops on planet, so why does this game have these things? Only one answer in my mind : Laziness.
Goddamnit Kain.. you beat me to it... but you forgot about the main trailer!
Edit: CURSES!
Anyway, I fully support the effort of making DoW 3 a mix between DoW1 and DoW 2. Base building should return at least to support your army. I think that DoW3 should begin to think on a large scale that Planetary Annihilation is considering, except that planets are not constructed, they are deconstructed as the war drags on. Bases are managed from space, inside starships, where production and resupply occurs depending on the evolution of the spacecraft, or even fleet of spacecraft.
For example: Lets say you always start with your command vessel, with a small force of your choosing at the beginning of every deployment. By managing the power supply / resources of the vessel, you can either choose deploy tanks, or teleport terminators on already deployed infantry with teleport homers. By taking a planetary objective and gaining additional resources the capital ship has additional resources to call for aid. Your capital ship then warps in additional craft, such as a battle barge full of soldiers that becomes part of your fleet and begins to continuously deploy soldiers. Depending on your play style and management skills, you can use swarms of standard infantry to do the job, outfit a small band of extremely powerful, highly skilled soldiers with the relics inside your craft, or a mixture of the two. As your soldiers gain experience, they become even more deadly, so ensuring the survival of a core division of troops will make them very lethal on the battlefield (either by favor of armament, or a very large meatshield.) You'll have to manage between shifting the resources of your fleet to defend itself from attack, support the troops on the ground, or taking the time to call in additional support.
The other neat part of this is that bases become mobile, meaning that if a planet is lost, it is ok to retreat, regroup, and begin to fortify another position - so long as your command ship survives with fuel, you can limp on. Objectives range from resource gathering nodes, (starport fueling stations - powering your warp drives or equivalents), treasure troves where relics are stored, civilian populace centers (where they can be consumed for power if not aligned to the IoM, or recruited for additional troop support by the IoM), or defensive positions where orbital cannons and massive void shield stations exist to halt the advance of huge armies. There could be countless others, like research stations and other mysterious objectives, but Kain said it right, DoW has the full capability of going to a galaxy wide conflict, Exterminatus can be implemented, armies can be both huge and highly customizatible and RPG feeling, and bases can both exist and be refreshingly new and exciting.
Well, two game suggestions in one thread...yes please? Any strategy game where I get to use a relativistic rock as a valid weapon of war has to make me smile.
Brother SRM wrote: It still seems to have some basebuilding/mining stuff going on, which I don't really like the idea of in a 40k game. However, the battles going from space to planetary landings is very cool! Makes me wish Relic could have done some Homeworld-style space combat with Battlefleet Gothic ships.
You could have the troops be recruited total war style in a galactic map and drop them off on a planet.
Although you could give the Tyranids and Orks real time unit production to better suit their hordey nature.
So basically, you ignore the fact that all the buildings in the base are reskinned copies from warcraft? I won't even respond to the guy above you, and his lame attempts at trollings.
Dawn of war 2 on the other hand was a concept of game that hadn't been done to death, in fact I can't really think of another game that I have played with a similar setup. That's what I look for in my video games, something ORIGINAL, it's why I loved games like katamari, and the telltale games, "The walking dead". If you want to reskin a game, make ever so slight changes, because that's what you listed above, and call it a totally original masterpiece that is your business, but to me I see it for what it is.
Which are reskinned from Command and Conquer, which are reskinned from Dune. Right? A building that makes troops, a building that makes vehicles, and a building that upgrades said things are about as archetypical as guns that shoot bullets, buckshot, or rockets in first person shooters. They're kind of mainstays of the genre. I won't say Dawn of War 1 was "a totally original masterpiece" to borrow the words you put in my mouth, but it did have a lot original ideas and implementations of ideas.
The fact is warhammer 40k combat has nothing to do with base building at all, from what I've read, they generally move a huge amount of troops into existing structures, and fight. What I would have liked to see is a game that is based off of that premise rather than the premise that all RTS games must have a farm, a stronghold, a barracks, and an armory. What I see is game developers on dawn of war 1 take the easy way out, simply copy another persons idea.
It is like saint's row games, to me they're boring copies of grand theft auto, their whole premise is almost exactly the same as far as gameplay. The same thing can be said for any MMORPG made in the last 7 or 8 years, sure they might be slightly different from WoW, but the basic gameplay is a carbon copy! I want new gameplay, not the same rehashed idea with a couple of new things. Again, the warhammer 40k fluff I've read has NOTHING about base building, or training troops on planet, so why does this game have these things? Only one answer in my mind : Laziness.
You say laziness, I say a method of keeping army growth under control. By the sounds of it, you would like to have everything pop onto the map all at once, like a giant version of the DoW II and Chaos Rising campaign missions (well, perhaps not drop pods, but you understand what I mean). It could work, but that's not the pacing that the game devs wanted. This also allows for a semblance of balance. If you can't produce units in-game, and you felt like spamming a particular unit, and your opponent brought the hard counter, you won't have a good time. You never hear RTS players complain about list tailoring, whereas it is something discussed with relative frequency here on Dakka.
If you want new gameplay, move to a different genre. At its core, RTS (or strategy games of any sort) is ordering units of varying size and potency across the map(/board/table) to smash the other player's units. With your comparison of GTA and Saint's Row, I personally disagree about them being "boring copies". While the core ideas are the same (crime, carjacking), I feel Saint's Row (3 anyway) executed this formula much more engagingly, primarily the ability to put up a good fight before you get wiped out by the enemy without use of cheats. But I digress. If your argument boils down to "if it's roughly along the same lines as the game before it, it's garbage," then I don't think there's much else that can be discussed. Both games have their merits, and places they fall short, but poking at those soft spots alone without presenting anything on those strong suits leaves for weaker points. Your argument pretty much reads "WoW did it first, so every other RTS game that has a base-building mechanic is a boring repaint." If these kind of games aren't your cup of tea, then to each their own. People will argue against you.
I'm also a turtle player, and like to have a strong defensive point while amassing a large force to go forth and have a roflstomp with my enemies. You can tell I don't go for too much of a challenge with these sorts of things. I have played all of the DoW (minus winter assault) and DoW II games, and enjoy them both, though I do miss the base building, even if it would be just one more unit production building. But, as I said earlier, to each their own.
dementedwombat wrote: Well, two game suggestions in one thread...yes please? Any strategy game where I get to use a relativistic rock as a valid weapon of war has to make me smile.
Planetary Annihilation is an upcoming indie spiritual successor to Supreme Commander and it's own spiritual predecessor Total Annihilation.
And they're definitely upping the hell out of the ante in PA.
So basically, you ignore the fact that all the buildings in the base are reskinned copies from warcraft? I won't even respond to the guy above you, and his lame attempts at trollings.
Dawn of war 2 on the other hand was a concept of game that hadn't been done to death, in fact I can't really think of another game that I have played with a similar setup. That's what I look for in my video games, something ORIGINAL, it's why I loved games like katamari, and the telltale games, "The walking dead". If you want to reskin a game, make ever so slight changes, because that's what you listed above, and call it a totally original masterpiece that is your business, but to me I see it for what it is.
Which are reskinned from Command and Conquer, which are reskinned from Dune. Right? A building that makes troops, a building that makes vehicles, and a building that upgrades said things are about as archetypical as guns that shoot bullets, buckshot, or rockets in first person shooters. They're kind of mainstays of the genre. I won't say Dawn of War 1 was "a totally original masterpiece" to borrow the words you put in my mouth, but it did have a lot original ideas and implementations of ideas.
The fact is warhammer 40k combat has nothing to do with base building at all, from what I've read, they generally move a huge amount of troops into existing structures, and fight. What I would have liked to see is a game that is based off of that premise rather than the premise that all RTS games must have a farm, a stronghold, a barracks, and an armory. What I see is game developers on dawn of war 1 take the easy way out, simply copy another persons idea.
It is like saint's row games, to me they're boring copies of grand theft auto, their whole premise is almost exactly the same as far as gameplay. The same thing can be said for any MMORPG made in the last 7 or 8 years, sure they might be slightly different from WoW, but the basic gameplay is a carbon copy! I want new gameplay, not the same rehashed idea with a couple of new things. Again, the warhammer 40k fluff I've read has NOTHING about base building, or training troops on planet, so why does this game have these things? Only one answer in my mind : Laziness.
You say laziness, I say a method of keeping army growth under control. By the sounds of it, you would like to have everything pop onto the map all at once, like a giant version of the DoW II and Chaos Rising campaign missions (well, perhaps not drop pods, but you understand what I mean). It could work, but that's not the pacing that the game devs wanted. This also allows for a semblance of balance. If you can't produce units in-game, and you felt like spamming a particular unit, and your opponent brought the hard counter, you won't have a good time. You never hear RTS players complain about list tailoring, whereas it is something discussed with relative frequency here on Dakka.
If you want new gameplay, move to a different genre. At its core, RTS (or strategy games of any sort) is ordering units of varying size and potency across the map(/board/table) to smash the other player's units. With your comparison of GTA and Saint's Row, I personally disagree about them being "boring copies". While the core ideas are the same (crime, carjacking), I feel Saint's Row (3 anyway) executed this formula much more engagingly, primarily the ability to put up a good fight before you get wiped out by the enemy without use of cheats. But I digress. If your argument boils down to "if it's roughly along the same lines as the game before it, it's garbage," then I don't think there's much else that can be discussed. Both games have their merits, and places they fall short, but poking at those soft spots alone without presenting anything on those strong suits leaves for weaker points. Your argument pretty much reads "WoW did it first, so every other RTS game that has a base-building mechanic is a boring repaint." If these kind of games aren't your cup of tea, then to each their own. People will argue against you.
I'm also a turtle player, and like to have a strong defensive point while amassing a large force to go forth and have a roflstomp with my enemies. You can tell I don't go for too much of a challenge with these sorts of things. I have played all of the DoW (minus winter assault) and DoW II games, and enjoy them both, though I do miss the base building, even if it would be just one more unit production building. But, as I said earlier, to each their own.
There is a hundred different ways you could do it rather than just all units on the field at once, perhaps you start with a small force, and have to take an orbital relay or something over to call in reinforcements from any nearby imperial navy. Make it something where you have a relationship meter with different forces such as the leader of a space marine chapter, or an imperial navy commander, which dictates how much troops they'll be willing to send to help in your campaign. You could make it about holding key fortified locations, rather than obliterate all enemy units on the map to win like how objectives are meant to be held in the TT.
Also, WoW is an MMORPG not a RTS game not sure what you're talking about on that last part.
So basically, you ignore the fact that all the buildings in the base are reskinned copies from warcraft? I won't even respond to the guy above you, and his lame attempts at trollings.
Dawn of war 2 on the other hand was a concept of game that hadn't been done to death, in fact I can't really think of another game that I have played with a similar setup. That's what I look for in my video games, something ORIGINAL, it's why I loved games like katamari, and the telltale games, "The walking dead". If you want to reskin a game, make ever so slight changes, because that's what you listed above, and call it a totally original masterpiece that is your business, but to me I see it for what it is.
Which are reskinned from Command and Conquer, which are reskinned from Dune. Right? A building that makes troops, a building that makes vehicles, and a building that upgrades said things are about as archetypical as guns that shoot bullets, buckshot, or rockets in first person shooters. They're kind of mainstays of the genre. I won't say Dawn of War 1 was "a totally original masterpiece" to borrow the words you put in my mouth, but it did have a lot original ideas and implementations of ideas.
The fact is warhammer 40k combat has nothing to do with base building at all, from what I've read, they generally move a huge amount of troops into existing structures, and fight. What I would have liked to see is a game that is based off of that premise rather than the premise that all RTS games must have a farm, a stronghold, a barracks, and an armory. What I see is game developers on dawn of war 1 take the easy way out, simply copy another persons idea.
It is like saint's row games, to me they're boring copies of grand theft auto, their whole premise is almost exactly the same as far as gameplay. The same thing can be said for any MMORPG made in the last 7 or 8 years, sure they might be slightly different from WoW, but the basic gameplay is a carbon copy! I want new gameplay, not the same rehashed idea with a couple of new things. Again, the warhammer 40k fluff I've read has NOTHING about base building, or training troops on planet, so why does this game have these things? Only one answer in my mind : Laziness.
You say laziness, I say a method of keeping army growth under control. By the sounds of it, you would like to have everything pop onto the map all at once, like a giant version of the DoW II and Chaos Rising campaign missions (well, perhaps not drop pods, but you understand what I mean). It could work, but that's not the pacing that the game devs wanted. This also allows for a semblance of balance. If you can't produce units in-game, and you felt like spamming a particular unit, and your opponent brought the hard counter, you won't have a good time. You never hear RTS players complain about list tailoring, whereas it is something discussed with relative frequency here on Dakka.
If you want new gameplay, move to a different genre. At its core, RTS (or strategy games of any sort) is ordering units of varying size and potency across the map(/board/table) to smash the other player's units. With your comparison of GTA and Saint's Row, I personally disagree about them being "boring copies". While the core ideas are the same (crime, carjacking), I feel Saint's Row (3 anyway) executed this formula much more engagingly, primarily the ability to put up a good fight before you get wiped out by the enemy without use of cheats. But I digress. If your argument boils down to "if it's roughly along the same lines as the game before it, it's garbage," then I don't think there's much else that can be discussed. Both games have their merits, and places they fall short, but poking at those soft spots alone without presenting anything on those strong suits leaves for weaker points. Your argument pretty much reads "WoW did it first, so every other RTS game that has a base-building mechanic is a boring repaint." If these kind of games aren't your cup of tea, then to each their own. People will argue against you.
I'm also a turtle player, and like to have a strong defensive point while amassing a large force to go forth and have a roflstomp with my enemies. You can tell I don't go for too much of a challenge with these sorts of things. I have played all of the DoW (minus winter assault) and DoW II games, and enjoy them both, though I do miss the base building, even if it would be just one more unit production building. But, as I said earlier, to each their own.
There is a hundred different ways you could do it rather than just all units on the field at once, perhaps you start with a small force, and have to take an orbital relay or something over to call in reinforcements from any nearby imperial navy. Make it something where you have a relationship meter with different forces such as the leader of a space marine chapter, or an imperial navy commander, which dictates how much troops they'll be willing to send to help in your campaign. You could make it about holding key fortified locations, rather than obliterate all enemy units on the map to win like how objectives are meant to be held in the TT.
Also, WoW is an MMORPG not a RTS game not sure what you're talking about on that last part.
So effectively World in Conflict with a less punishing pop cap?
I'd like to add on to my previous post about mobile space bases... they'd basically be MCV's from Command and Conquer that aren't horribly defenseless and slow behemoths, they instead would be these frightening creatures:
They'd have 3 different modes (much the same as the old DoW2 commanders) - Strategic Bombardment, Interstellar Combat, Telepathic Relay
Strategic Bombardment - The Command Vessel positions itself in lower orbit, becoming vulnerable to both enemy spacecraft and orbital defenses, but can deliever punishing salvos of firepower. If outfitted correctly, the battleship can lay waste to entire continents, or even deliver the dreaded blow of exterminatus. This is also the only mode a command vessel can allow transport of troops to a planetary surface. CV's that are carriers forfiet firepower with the ability to quickly transport more troops to the ground.
Interstellar Combat - Allows the devastating weapons of a battleship to brought against enemies in the void of space, as well as movement between celestial bodies and even Warp capabilities. Carrier CV's forfeit firepower with the ability to deploy fighters and bombers to defend themselves from attack.
Telepathic Relay - Emergency signals that can travel the vast plains of the galaxy to listening ears require a vast amount of energy. To be effective in any combat situation, every army will eventually need to call for aid. However, it is impossible for every ally to be immediately on the scene, and due to the perils of the warp, a CV must devote its attentions to remain as a guiding light to incoming help. To break the relay would mean those who were inside the warp would suddenly be flying blind. Where they would end up is anyone's guess, but what is certain is that cancelling a relay is no laughing matter, for when the help arrives, it may not be alone....
Please tell me more about how Dawn of War is just a rename / reskin of Warcraft / Starcraft / Red Alert: Warcraft
Spoiler:
Warcraft II
Spoiler:
Warcraft III
Spoiler:
Starcraft
Spoiler:
CnC: Red Alert
Spoiler:
Dawn of War
Spoiler:
Now if you excuse me, after spending 2 episodes of GitS making this and nostalgiaing everywhere, I'm off to reinstall Warcraft II, III, Starcraft, CnC: Tiberium Sun - Firestorm and Dawn of War. Maybe SupCom.
I know, but that's part of the genre.
Niexists claim is that it was simply a reskin and renaming of these previous titles, with the same buildings and units as the previous games.
Ovion wrote: Please tell me more about how Dawn of War is just a rename / reskin of Warcraft / Starcraft / Red Alert:
Warcraft
Spoiler:
Warcraft II
Spoiler:
Warcraft III
Spoiler:
Starcraft
Spoiler:
CnC: Red Alert
Spoiler:
Dawn of War
Spoiler:
Now if you excuse me, after spending 2 episodes of GitS making this and nostalgiaing everywhere, I'm off to reinstall Warcraft II, III, Starcraft, CnC: Tiberium Sun - Firestorm and Dawn of War.
Maybe SupCom.
Ovion wrote: Please tell me more about how Dawn of War is just a rename / reskin of Warcraft / Starcraft / Red Alert:
Warcraft
Spoiler:
Warcraft II
Spoiler:
Warcraft III
Spoiler:
Starcraft
Spoiler:
CnC: Red Alert
Spoiler:
Dawn of War
Spoiler:
Now if you excuse me, after spending 2 episodes of GitS making this and nostalgiaing everywhere, I'm off to reinstall Warcraft II, III, Starcraft, CnC: Tiberium Sun - Firestorm and Dawn of War.
Maybe SupCom.
Kain wrote: Clearly Halo is a rip off of DOOM because both involve burly people in space shooting space monsters with space guns.
Actually Halo is a rip-off of Marathon (which was a rip off of Doom because both involved burly people in space shooting space monsters with space guns).
Orblivion wrote: orkybenji is correct, the publisher no longer exists. Relic was bought by Sega, but whether or not they still plan on making dow3 has not been announced.
So what...all that work already done is scrapped??
Isn't that poor business, wouldn't Sega benefit from funding already existing work than start something new?
Relic did release Company of Heroes 2 after the acquisition happened, but it was already a mostly-done game. We don't really know where DoW3 was in the development cycle (it had not even been officially announced).
Relic still exists as a company, making it luckier then some victims of this deal. Sega acquired them mostly intact precisely because they were one of THQ's well-performing studios, so I expect Relic to come out with DoW3 sometime.
Who know when, though? And it might be a sucky free-to-play smartphone game.
Kain wrote: Clearly Halo is a rip off of DOOM because both involve burly people in space shooting space monsters with space guns.
Actually Halo is a rip-off of Marathon (which was a rip off of Doom because both involved burly people in space shooting space monsters with space guns).
The main difference being that it was for Macintosh while Doom was solely for the PC master race.
I'm fairly confident in Relic being there for a Dawn of War 3, even under Sega. Sega owns Creative Assembly (makers of Total War), and they're working on a Warhammer Fantasy game.
Ovion wrote: Please tell me more about how Dawn of War is just a rename / reskin of Warcraft / Starcraft / Red Alert:
Warcraft
Spoiler:
Warcraft II
Spoiler:
Warcraft III
Spoiler:
Starcraft
Spoiler:
CnC: Red Alert
Spoiler:
Dawn of War
Spoiler:
Now if you excuse me, after spending 2 episodes of GitS making this and nostalgiaing everywhere, I'm off to reinstall Warcraft II, III, Starcraft, CnC: Tiberium Sun - Firestorm and Dawn of War.
Maybe SupCom.
I love how my point was the similarities of the buildings, and unit production, which you listed for all games except Dawn of War.
Yeah, after the other games and spending about 40 minutes on it, and realising what a waste of time it was turning into, I got a little bored.
But the point is, RTS games, on the whole, have unit production and tech trees.
Some have similar things, to some degree.
But having an Armoury and a Barracks (Fairly generic terms I might add) in a game, doesn't make them simply a reskin.
The resource management system of Dawn of War, being Requisition Points and Energy, as well as how you acquired them, is different to pretty much every other RTS I can think of, with others requiring units to mine a finite number of resources.
SupCom is close, in its need for Energy and Mass, but there's still a heavier focus on resource production, and a massive focus on Base Building.
Dawn of War is an interesting take on the genre, with squad based production and resource bonuses for taking strategic locations, rather than resources needign farming and individual units, being manually grouped.
.... and WoW owes its existence to games like UO, Everquest, Lineage, and a half-dozen other MMOs that came out between 3 and 6 years prior to its release. WoW was not the first-to-market MMO, it simply paved over the trail other MMOs had blazed for it.
What I would like to see in DoW3 is a blend of the DoW1 game and the game of DoW2. I want squads of heroes/specific units acting in concert. Don't make me build buildings, but let me find and capture buildings already on the battlefield, which then unlocks one squad of dudes/dudettes that fill some specific role, whether that's heavy weapons, scouts, area-suppression, tank-hunters, whatever. Some of these could, instead, offer upgrades to units you already have.
This way, we get the squad-based action of DoW2, the army building of DoW1 (do I go with capturing the Cathedral for some Chaplain support, or do I capture the Manufactorum for better guns?), and the tactical thinking and massive battles of both games.
Psienesis wrote: .... and WoW owes its existence to games like UO, Everquest, Lineage, and a half-dozen other MMOs that came out between 3 and 6 years prior to its release. WoW was not the first-to-market MMO, it simply paved over the trail other MMOs had blazed for it.
What I would like to see in DoW3 is a blend of the DoW1 game and the game of DoW2. I want squads of heroes/specific units acting in concert. Don't make me build buildings, but let me find and capture buildings already on the battlefield, which then unlocks one squad of dudes/dudettes that fill some specific role, whether that's heavy weapons, scouts, area-suppression, tank-hunters, whatever. Some of these could, instead, offer upgrades to units you already have.
This way, we get the squad-based action of DoW2, the army building of DoW1 (do I go with capturing the Cathedral for some Chaplain support, or do I capture the Manufactorum for better guns?), and the tactical thinking and massive battles of both games.
and UO, everquest owe their existance to text-based RPG's called MUD's like Gemstone III. They weren't the first, but before WoW you had MMO's with innovative game ideas, for instance SWG pre-CU, or Earth and Beyond. Even UO/Everquest were entirely different beasts. Since then however they've all followed the same basic premise of WoW with the majority of your experience coming from quest givers with arrows pointing to exactly where you need to go.
Ovion wrote: Please tell me more about how Dawn of War is just a rename / reskin of Warcraft / Starcraft / Red Alert:
Warcraft
Spoiler:
Warcraft II
Spoiler:
Warcraft III
Spoiler:
Starcraft
Spoiler:
CnC: Red Alert
Spoiler:
Dawn of War
Spoiler:
Now if you excuse me, after spending 2 episodes of GitS making this and nostalgiaing everywhere, I'm off to reinstall Warcraft II, III, Starcraft, CnC: Tiberium Sun - Firestorm and Dawn of War.
Maybe SupCom.
I love how my point was the similarities of the buildings, and unit production, which you listed for all games except Dawn of War.
Yeah, after the other games and spending about 40 minutes on it, and realising what a waste of time it was turning into, I got a little bored.
But the point is, RTS games, on the whole, have unit production and tech trees.
Some have similar things, to some degree.
But having an Armoury and a Barracks (Fairly generic terms I might add) in a game, doesn't make them simply a reskin.
The resource management system of Dawn of War, being Requisition Points and Energy, as well as how you acquired them, is different to pretty much every other RTS I can think of, with others requiring units to mine a finite number of resources.
SupCom is close, in its need for Energy and Mass, but there's still a heavier focus on resource production, and a massive focus on Base Building.
Dawn of War is an interesting take on the genre, with squad based production and resource bonuses for taking strategic locations, rather than resources needign farming and individual units, being manually grouped.
So since the whole point of your post with the images was to prove how different the games are, please post the structures and show the differences in these structures.
MUDs may have formed the idea of making a graphical, real-time combat game, but the scope of a MUD is small potatoes compared to an MMO from a triple-A studio. I've been in guilds with more members than most MUDs have ever had players.
MUDs also originated in the days of the BBS, when you dialed into the internet using an assigned phone number, and paid long-distance charges if the server you were calling was outside of your area code. They're a relic of a different era of the internet, but they were what they were. They certainly generated the basic concept of taking D&D and making it a visual video game that could be collectively enjoyed by thousands, but they did not really blaze the trail for MMOs in the way the first-gen MMOs blazed the trail for WoW.
Psienesis wrote: MUDs may have formed the idea of making a graphical, real-time combat game, but the scope of a MUD is small potatoes compared to an MMO from a triple-A studio. I've been in guilds with more members than most MUDs have ever had players.
MUDs also originated in the days of the BBS, when you dialed into the internet using an assigned phone number, and paid long-distance charges if the server you were calling was outside of your area code. They're a relic of a different era of the internet, but they were what they were. They certainly generated the basic concept of taking D&D and making it a visual video game that could be collectively enjoyed by thousands, but they did not really blaze the trail for MMOs in the way the first-gen MMOs blazed the trail for WoW.
Gemstone III was one of, if not the first MUD. It had a player base of over 100,000 accounts when it was on AOL, with 4-5000 logging in at peak hours. It still has an active subscriber base today, with subscription fees going up to 75 dollars a month, something that no MMO could ever get people to pay.. As far as being "small potatoes" Having an actual roleplaying game where you grind when you like to, but also have GM interaction in the form of events, gods visiting(and killing) people, MASSIVE invasions of thousands of creatures on the townships of the game, to me this isn't small potatoes, and a MUD really has what an MMO lacks - character.
It's funny, I have a character in GS3 that I have played for 22 years, probably surpassing a lot of people's age on this message board.
Whoever said that DoW2 Retribution was hero hammer is a bit wrong. I often found myself ditching Adrastia for more storm troopers.
Anyway the problems with DoW2 (which was a good game, easily as good as the first) were all to do with single production structures. If you lost a single unit it threw off your entire build order as you wasted time rebuilding that unit to not get beaten on the ground then, delaying producing more units. The maps in DoW2 felt too big for your forces on the map until you got into team games, but even then there were too many pathways for the enemy to take and you spent a lot of time wondering how units somehow managed to get past all your lines and are capping the requisition points right outside your base and then killing them.
Its telling that Relic went back to base building in CoH2
Gemstone III was one of, if not the first MUD. It had a player base of over 100,000 accounts when it was on AOL, with 4-5000 logging in at peak hours. It still has an active subscriber base today, with subscription fees going up to 75 dollars a month, something that no MMO could ever get people to pay.. As far as being "small potatoes" Having an actual roleplaying game where you grind when you like to, but also have GM interaction in the form of events, gods visiting(and killing) people, MASSIVE invasions of thousands of creatures on the townships of the game, to me this isn't small potatoes, and a MUD really has what an MMO lacks - character.
Not even close, man. There were early MUDs around in the late 70s on certain college networks and ARPANet. True MUDs, available to the public, would start cropping up in the early to mid 80s, with Gemstone showing up in like 1990.
On to Dawn of War Three...
I liked the Ork and IG campaigns from Retribution. Playing as the Eldar in any of the previous titles of the series, though, was terrible. The hit-and-run nature of Eldar warfare is not well-suited to the gameplay style of DOW. They were also super-fragile in Soulstorm and Dark Crusade, simply unfairly so.
Soulstorm and DC, though, were probably my favorite of the entire run, as I think the whole over-view map of territories with their own bonuses and advantages is a cool thing, and could be expanded on in a much bigger way, even for online play (either real-time or turn-by-turn).
Well, there's nothing really to respond to in them, because you're right. the DoW1 series was a boiler-plate RTS with building things, resource gathering and tech-trees.
It wasn't particularly complex in any of these areas (and was, in fact, almost a straight line... more like a tech-stick than a tree) and really wasn't even particularly required by the game. Building a couple buildings gave you access to things your squads should have had from the get-go... (really, you need some Imperial Relic to train an Apothecary? A blinged-out fortress for a Sergeant?)
DoW1 and its successor titles were a serviceable, competent RTS. They weren't anything new as far as RTS were concerned, though.
I can't believe people here are now discussing what is a "rip-off" of what, the most irrelevant senseless thing anyone could be talking about.
The whole of human endeavor in all areas of life is based on building upon previous ideas.
P.S.
Having a space ship(SM, Tau, IG) as a base of operations is a great idea, but then you must eventually have full access to all of its arsenal and capabilities, not just run around with a couple of guys.
I can't believe people here are now discussing what is a "rip-off" of what, the most irrelevant senseless thing anyone could be talking about.
More irrelevant and senseless than talking about a game of pixel soldiers running around on a screen that is based on a game of plastic soldiers being moved around on a board?
When, by the very same means by which we post on these forums, we can access the sum of all human knowledge?
Psienesis wrote: Well, there's nothing really to respond to in them, because you're right. the DoW1 series was a boiler-plate RTS with building things, resource gathering and tech-trees.
It wasn't particularly complex in any of these areas (and was, in fact, almost a straight line... more like a tech-stick than a tree) and really wasn't even particularly required by the game. Building a couple buildings gave you access to things your squads should have had from the get-go... (really, you need some Imperial Relic to train an Apothecary? A blinged-out fortress for a Sergeant?)
DoW1 and its successor titles were a serviceable, competent RTS. They weren't anything new as far as RTS were concerned, though.
Dow's primary innovations was the rudimentary introduction of cover, a very advanced physics engine for an RTS game of the era (knock back and ragdolling for example was virtually *unheard of* for an RTS back then), a shift away from resource gathering units in favor of forcing you to fight if you want the primary resource via capture points, and squad based combat in an era primarily dominated by units being produced in singular amounts even for the largest scale of games.
Even more shocking is that Dawn of War used an unfortunately overlooked prior Relic Game's engine.
Yeah, an RTS game about lab grown abominations that would make PETA weep sweet, sweet tears gave rise to the infinitely more successful dawn of war from it's corpse.
It's a shame that Impossible Creatures wasn't particularly successful, it had an extremely novel concept (how many other RTS games let you design your own units?) and had an interesting plotline.
It was also horribly balanced, and full of glitches. Multiplayer devolved into whoever could get either the most powerful creature type first, or whoever managed to figure out whose getting it and get the counter.
I can give you several examples. Most of them are older games though.
War, Inc. (DOS era game, you were controlled a mercenary company and designed your own units, directed research, invested in the stock market, and commanded them in battle)
Cyberstorm 2: Corporate Wars (A Battletech style game of a similar style as War, Inc., from the Sierra era of computer games, albeit with a darker setting than Battletech, if that can be believed.)
Earth 21XX series (Closer to what you'd think of as an RTS probably; 2150 is where this series peaked I think)
Brother SRM wrote: Gorgutz is a poor man's Thrakka. Bludflagg is a god damn pirate Ork captain and he's brimming with character.
DOUBLE HERESY, BLAM And ghazzy Is no match for gorgutz.Gorgutz doesn't gather the biggest WAAAAGH and then fail to kill one measly planet.Its not even a forge world!
Brother SRM wrote: Gorgutz is a poor man's Thrakka. Bludflagg is a god damn pirate Ork captain and he's brimming with character.
DOUBLE HERESY, BLAM And ghazzy Is no match for gorgutz.Gorgutz doesn't gather the biggest WAAAAGH and then fail to kill one measly planet.Its not even a forge world!
You seem to be receptive...
In either case, both orks have their good sides, and I enjoyed both of them. Kaptain Bludflagg has much more character going for him, though, and the commentary between him and his crew throughout the campaign is hilarious.
For example,
Mista Nailbrain; Uh, boss?
Bludflagg; Not now, Mista Nailbrain, I 'aven't finished sassing dis eldar git yet.
And also, summary execution for not agreeing which ork is better? What has the Commisariat degraded into?
Psienesis wrote: ... you also get a Deffrolla in the Ork Campaign, iirc.
The battlewagon with a Deffrolla was even in DoW2 if I recall correctly. Buldozing through a wall into a squad of enemy troops in multiplayer was awesome, as was my finest moment with the Kommando Nob where I threw a blanket of grenades on the ground and forced a mob of Eldar to fall back into it, gibbing all of them instantly
ZebioLizard2 wrote: It was also horribly balanced, and full of glitches. Multiplayer devolved into whoever could get either the most powerful creature type first, or whoever managed to figure out whose getting it and get the counter.
Yeah, by Tier 5 it was all moose lobsters, mammoth ravens, and baboon sperm whales.
I was a rebel with my behemoths but then again I tended to get stomped on pretty hard online.
Yonan wrote: empire and napoleon were easily the worst total war games. I used to love total war, but creative assembly have butchered the series with their focus on metacritic and arcade gameplay over deep gameplay and tactical combat.
Exactly this but no at all, Empire and Napoleon are so far the best and most tactical in the series.
