Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I'm still not sure why, exactly, Soulstorm gets as much hate as it does. I mean, the fliers are a disappointment, but it's not like the game crams them down your throat and forces you to use them. I've completed the campaign about 4 different times without touching a single flier.

Hell, I actually prefer Soulstorm over Dark Crusade. In Dark Crusade, the computer outright cheats in the campaign. Plus, the game becomes nigh-impossible to finish late-game because you enter every map with just an honor guard and no base, while your opponent has two fully upgraded bases. By the time I hit the last few missions in Dark Crusade, I almost had to give up because I would get swamped with enemy units within the first 2 minutes, and no way to counter them. Soulstorm got rid of the persistent bases and balanced the whole mess out.

I played 40k for 11 years

Then dawn of war crusade came out and I stopped playing the table top game for 5 years

Im only just getting back into it now - turns out I missed 2 editions of the game or somethign lol as 6E is coming out soon

I liked Dawn Of War 2, and did not miss the basebuilding. And that interwie was notting but hot air.

sumi808 wrote:I played 40k for 11 years

Then dawn of war crusade came out and I stopped playing the table top game for 5 years

Im only just getting back into it now - turns out I missed 2 editions of the game or somethign lol as 6E is coming out soon

Same.
Also me and 5 people I know irl hated DOW2. The only people I've ever met who like it were on the internet. That is...telling.
Anyway I hope Basilisks with Earthshakers make it back in. "See those 20 terminators? Not any more!". Was great for "accidental" friendly fire in MP.

Joey wrote:Also me and 5 people I know irl hated DOW2. The only people I've ever met who like it were on the internet. That is...telling.

Yeah, it means that you don't know many people.

I don't know anyone IRL that enjoys DoW1, while I know a dozen people who like DoW2. DoW1 must suck.

That was another thing I remember about Soulstorm - non-persistent maps! Dark Crusade may have been mostly skirmish maps, but it remembered where you put everything. Soulstorm was endless skirmish as every battle started in the same way.

It was cool the first couple of times, until I realised how often the AI likes to attack you.
The fliers did suck though. It's a shame when there's so many units they could have put in.

The DoW 2 campaign is by far the best campaign out of the series, but I vastly prefer the multiplayer of Dark Crusade as it is balanced, has barely any bugs and tactics are actually involved

DOW2 campaigns were far superior to DOW1 campaigns.

That is the only thing DOW2 did better than DOW1.

Karon wrote:DOW2 campaigns were far superior to DOW1 campaigns.

That is the only thing DOW2 did better than DOW1.

Well, aside from superior gameplay, superior graphics, superior audio, superior controls, superior unit AI... you nkow, aside from all of that its campaigns were the only thing superior!

Melissia wrote:

Karon wrote:DOW2 campaigns were far superior to DOW1 campaigns.

That is the only thing DOW2 did better than DOW1.

Well, aside from superior gameplay, superior graphics, superior audio, superior controls, superior unit AI... you nkow, aside from all of that its campaigns were the only thing superior!

I agree on superior graphics, audio and AI, but that comes as no surprise as this is standard for the 2nd generation of any modern game. But gameplay in DoW 2 is a whole lot more stagnant and repetitive than its predecessor. Sure there might be gimmicky unit animations that make it seem like a whole lot has changed, but in reality you are getting less than the original.

I hated DoW2. I'm hoping they revert somewhat back to DoW1 while keeping some of the DoW2 game play improvements. Increase squad sizes, rebalance the map resources, and please I hope they fix some of the unit balance.

I'd love a DoW game that is more like CoH (not that DoW2 was all that different to start). I've really come to like the way CoH was built and I'd like a return to it.

The custom armies has my interest but I could see that easily becoming a half-assed feature that's just used for a blurb on the back of the box. Hope they really make good use of it.

Shooms wrote:But gameplay in DoW 2 is a whole lot more stagnant and repetitive than its predecessor

By more, of course, I think you meant less.

DoW1 was extremely stagnant and repetitive, bordering on starcraft even. Starcraft with squads and capture points essentially, with all the boring monotony that all 'craft games bring (aside from the entirely unaffiliated minecraft).

Melissia wrote:Well, aside from superior gameplay, superior graphics, superior audio, superior controls, superior unit AI... you nkow, aside from all of that its campaigns were the only thing superior!

The irony of course is that a page ago you were telling people off for stating their own opinions as fact. I guess that doesn't apply to you though?


How about a slightly different point of view:

Dawn of War was an RTS ala Command & Conquer, Total Annihilation and so on.
Dawn of War II was an RTT (at least in the single-player) ala MechCommander, Ground Control and so on.

This makes comparisons not quite as simple, as both games were attempting to achieve different types of game play.

I disliked DoW2, but for my own reasons. I just preferred DoW1's base building and mods, since I got to wage epic wars of killyness that, when mixed with certain mods, permenant bodies, and large unit caps, slowed down the game to the point where the game timer told me i'd spend an hour and a half in the fight, but about 3 hours had passed IRL.

DoW2 was a different gametype and had a different style of play that I just couldn't get in to.

I want DoW3 to bring back base building and epic army fights, but a lot of people don't, and that's why i'm not overly hyped, because it's either going to be great to me, or a disappointment to me, depending on which way they go with gameplay.

Melissia wrote:DoW1 was extremely stagnant and repetitive, bordering on starcraft even. Starcraft with squads and capture points essentially, with all the boring monotony that all 'craft games bring (aside from the entirely unaffiliated minecraft).

All video games are repetitive. After all, once players find the best way to do things, why bother doing anything else?

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Melissia wrote:Well, aside from superior gameplay, superior graphics, superior audio, superior controls, superior unit AI... you nkow, aside from all of that its campaigns were the only thing superior!

The irony of course is that a page ago you were telling people off for stating their own opinions as fact.

I don't know if you noticed (what with you never actually bothering to read anything you respond to) but if you would go back and read the quoted section of my post, maybe, just maybe, if you comprehend English, you mgiht understand that I was only speaking for my own beliefs, not for the beliefs of anyone else.

But that's crazy talk I suppose; that'd require you to think.

Melissia wrote:

Shooms wrote:But gameplay in DoW 2 is a whole lot more stagnant and repetitive than its predecessor

By more, of course, I think you meant less.

DoW1 was extremely stagnant and repetitive, bordering on starcraft even. Starcraft with squads and capture points essentially, with all the boring monotony that all 'craft games bring (aside from the entirely unaffiliated minecraft).

Nope, I definitely meant less when I said less. You're pretty much saying I can't have my own opinion if it doesn't mimic your own? Nice one.

The original Dawn of War was taking major elements from Starcraft, the most proven game of all time, and adding to it. If you're saying that DoW 1 and Starcraft are both boring and monotonous, you clearly have the minority point of view.

p.s - Interesting how this thread has veered a little of topic and is now a DoW1 vs DoW2 thread.

This was announced back in June of last year.

So much buttrage for the series, why can't people just accept that you don't have to like one or the other? For all of you who think 1 was better than 2, or 2 was better than 1, there are plenty who think both sucked and plenty who think both were great.

I played DoW for the base building and meat grinder aspect.

I played DoW2 because it was far more tactical and I got to micromanage squads.

I liked them both.

Because both of them got at least 2 expansions, and people are still playing both of them, I think it's safe to say that both were solid titles.

Necroshea wrote:
I played DoW2 because it was far more tactical

Uh, no. Having to do something that the AI used to do for you is not tactics, in the same way that picking up a chess peice is not tactics.
It's amazing how many people think that "I'm being shot at -> better take cover" amounts to a Manstein-esque tactical coup de grace.

Even so, DOW2 had actual tactics. DOW1 wound up being "build ALL the units!" and rush the enemy base. Do that in DOW2, and you'll get slaughtered. There's not a whole lot of tactical expertise required in 'build units, upgrade to full strength, attack-move at enemy.'

Locclo wrote:Even so, DOW2 had actual tactics. DOW1 wound up being "build ALL the units!" and rush the enemy base. Do that in DOW2, and you'll get slaughtered. There's not a whole lot of tactical expertise required in 'build units, upgrade to full strength, attack-move at enemy.'

I honestly couldn't tell you what was different in DOW2 other than that there were far fewer units and it took a lot longer to play. DOW2 played like a beta of DOW1.

Joey wrote:I honestly couldn't tell you what was different in DOW2

...I doubt that you've even actually played it tbh.

Joey wrote:

Necroshea wrote:
I played DoW2 because it was far more tactical

Uh, no. Having to do something that the AI used to do for you is not tactics, in the same way that picking up a chess peice is not tactics.
It's amazing how many people think that "I'm being shot at -> better take cover" amounts to a Manstein-esque tactical coup de grace.

See, I think I have discovered the issue here:
you are terrible at DOW2

DOW2 units do not "automatically find cover" like DOW1 units, because all cover in DOW2 is directional, this is /huge/

A vast majority of Multiplayer gameplay is flanking heavy weapons/cover, denying your enemy cover, strategically removing cover and otherwise messing with LOS with taller peices of cover to get the jump on people and prevent units from surviving fallback, it is extremely involved and playing tactically you can pick away at a players economy until you have an upperhand. There is minimal focus on build orders, screwing around with bases/turrets/ect. and turtling.

DOW1 is largely whoever survives the first rush, and then whomever has the biggest deathstar, Its pretty simple and always has been, if its your flavor than thats great, but stop dragging every thread that even remotely mentions DOW into a crapshoot because you are bad at DOW2.

I think the main reason why DOW2 is hated by people whom prefer DOW1 is simply because of how involved it is.

In DoW1, you were fully able to just grab your guys and push Attack Click towards the enemy base, and "Skilled" players were fully capable of jumping from unit to unit, throwing grenades, using abilities and such. In DoW2, there is no Easy Mode way of playing, you HAVE to be able to position each unit on the fly. Not good or bad, but does raise the skill floor a bit, making it a little less accessible.

I don't know how 2 is now, but when I stopped playing, there were a few cheap tactics that just ruined the game for me (Wraithguard spam, for instance. No, I have never thought myself very good at the game).


Couple the fact that Chaos wasn't included from the beginning, and it was kind of over for me. Not that I minded Chaos not being in it right off the bat, but suddenly having twenty people in a ten person game playing Chaos because it's THE SHINIES! is bloody annoying.

You mean just like how everyone was playing guard, or everyone was playing tau/necrons, or everyone was playing sisters/dark eldar after those expansions to DoW1? Yeah, that was annoying . But in the end that's just people trying something new out. IT's been a while and taht craze has died down.

Melissia wrote:

Pilau Rice wrote:The who and what now?

VTM Bloodlines was a first person shooter slash RPG based on White Wolf's Vampire: The Masquerade game setting (the old one, not the new one which is Vampire: The Requiem). Its story is very well told, its skill progression is fairly well balanced, you only get xp for completing missions and not for killing enemies so you can complete them in any way you want (there's usually a way to talk your way through a mission for example, through intimidation and such, there's the stealthy way, and finally there's always the guns blazing way as a fallback. Only the latter third of the missions toward the end of the game where the developers got lazy require lots of combat).

Fixed that for you

And that's the only flaw the game really has in my eyes...

Melissia wrote:I doubt that you've even actually played it tbh.

Lies.

Grundz wrote:

Joey wrote:

Necroshea wrote:
I played DoW2 because it was far more tactical

Uh, no. Having to do something that the AI used to do for you is not tactics, in the same way that picking up a chess peice is not tactics.
It's amazing how many people think that "I'm being shot at -> better take cover" amounts to a Manstein-esque tactical coup de grace.

See, I think I have discovered the issue here:
you are terrible at DOW2

DOW2 units do not "automatically find cover" like DOW1 units, because all cover in DOW2 is directional, this is /huge/

A vast majority of Multiplayer gameplay is flanking heavy weapons/cover, denying your enemy cover, strategically removing cover and otherwise messing with LOS with taller peices of cover to get the jump on people and prevent units from surviving fallback, it is extremely involved and playing tactically you can pick away at a players economy until you have an upperhand. There is minimal focus on build orders, screwing around with bases/turrets/ect. and turtling.

DOW1 is largely whoever survives the first rush, and then whomever has the biggest deathstar, Its pretty simple and always has been, if its your flavor than thats great, but stop dragging every thread that even remotely mentions DOW into a crapshoot because you are bad at DOW2.

How am I bad at DOW2 when the campaign bored me by how easy it is. Making a system more complicated in no way makes it more difficult to understand. I played and enjoyed Company of Heroes where it was kind of cool positioning your units to defend against a certain path, having over-lapping fields of fire supported by long-range artillery to win the day, that's some awesome gak.
DOW 2 is just lame. It's too small to be interesting. Reminds me somewhat of Fallout Tactics, actually.

If you want to just look at the campaign, DoW1 was far easier anyway, so what's your point (assuming you have any)?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Henners91 wrote:Fixed that for you

And that's the only flaw the game really has in my eyes...

Dunno if "latter third" really is accurate, as quite a bit of chinatown didn't require fighting, for instance.