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.

 Testify wrote:
Dawn of war 1 with amazing graphics.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Melissia wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Testify wrote:

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

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

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

He probably hasn't even played it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I love DoW 2 and the expansions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Brother SRM wrote:

 Testify wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Testify wrote:

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

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

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


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

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

Chaos is a mixture of IG and Space Marines.

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

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

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

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

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

Makutsu wrote:I actually like the Characters

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Brother SRM wrote:

How was it DoW1 but smaller? Cover mattered more

Arbitrary. All it did was slow down gameplay.

 Brother SRM wrote:

could be destroyed

Destructible terrain is good.

 Brother SRM wrote:

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

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

 Brother SRM wrote:
buildings could be garrisoned and destroyed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Melissia wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Melissia wrote:

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

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

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

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Brother SRM wrote:

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

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