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.

 Frankenberry wrote:
She's not a Space Marine though, she's a Knight pilot.

Oh :(. I hope at least you enjoyed the nicer quality video so my post wasn't useless.

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:
Looks like they've taken the base building from 1

More's the pity, really, there's WAY better ways to do base building than the amateurish way that DoW1 did it.

 Melissia wrote:

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:
Looks like they've taken the base building from 1

More's the pity, really, there's WAY better ways to do base building than the amateurish way that DoW1 did it.

To be fair though, the only other RTS I've played is Total War, so take my interpretation with a pinch of salt, as it may actually be closer to something else. Although it was translucent shaded building placement, so maybe I shouldn't doubt myself.

A Total War-esque 40k game would be sooooooo lovely.

 Ashiraya wrote:
A Total War-esque 40k game would be sooooooo lovely.

Would that also include the huge amounts of the typical bugs that has plauged the Total War series these last few years? Id rather have them drop the basebuilding all togetter,

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:
Looks like they've taken the base building from 1

More's the pity, really, there's WAY better ways to do base building than the amateurish way that DoW1 did it.

To be fair though, the only other RTS I've played is Total War, so take my interpretation with a pinch of salt, as it may actually be closer to something else. Although it was translucent shaded building placement, so maybe I shouldn't doubt myself.

I'm not sure either, but given the developer is new to the franchise, I'm thinking I'm safe in assuming they're going ot make the game more generic and more ripping off starcrapped, like most RTS developersi n the 90s and early 2000s did (which basically ended in the slow death of the RTS genre because of lack of innovation, though with recent independent releases this is slowly reversing).

SupCom springs to mind as an example of a game with far superior base building to starcraft, as does its spiritual predecessor Total Annihilation, and its spiritual successor Planetary Annihilation, though a bit less so for SupCom2 which dropped the more unique elements for being more "mainstream" and was panned by fans for it. The company of heroes series also have good base building mechanics, both games are also perfect because they use the same game engine as DoW2, so it would only need a refinement of the engine and customization of the building aspects to make it fit 40k better and still be able to satisfy those who prefer to have base management in their RTS. But there's plenty of other games that can do it-- Grey Goo appears to have a good idea for example, and I would even say that the CnC series is far better than the Starcraft series when it comes to base management, though I wouldn't want to use CnC's resource management for a 40k game (SupCom's would be better).

I want a Wargame style 40k game now. Oh my god that would be so amazing. We could have maps big enough to support Emperor Titans and full chapter combat vs equivalent size of other factions.

And 10v10 maps. Wooohoo.

I don't think Eugen is a fan of 40k though.

A Wargame style 40k would be pretty awesome, indeed! Hell, it'd even include list-building, one of the most beloved aspects of the hobby.

 Melissia wrote:
A Wargame style 40k would be pretty awesome, indeed! Hell, it'd even include list-building, one of the most beloved aspects of the hobby.

I would play this sort of game to death if it where released

 Melissia wrote:
...who have the strategic and tactical capacity of toddlers.

Well that last bit is pretty much canon as they often get all their tactics and strategies out of a book

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Frankenberry wrote:
She's not a Space Marine though, she's a Knight pilot.

Oh :(. I hope at least you enjoyed the nicer quality video so my post wasn't useless.

At least she's still a high-ranking female in a faction that in the fluff is meant to be male-only (even if she isn't the only cannon female knight).

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Frankenberry wrote:
She's not a Space Marine though, she's a Knight pilot.

Oh :(. I hope at least you enjoyed the nicer quality video so my post wasn't useless.

I did actually! The higher quality allowed me to see more of the gameplay at a closer view. I'm sorry if my reply seemed snarky, it wasn't meant to be :(

Matt.Kingsley wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Frankenberry wrote:
She's not a Space Marine though, she's a Knight pilot.

Oh :(. I hope at least you enjoyed the nicer quality video so my post wasn't useless.

At least she's still a high-ranking female in a faction that in the fluff is meant to be male-only (even if she isn't the only cannon female knight).

There's no evidence that titan pilots are male only, for example; the emperor titan princeps that fought at Helsreach. She commanded not only one of the most powerful titans in existence, but an entire battlegroup of them as a result.

Knight Nobles are NOT the same as the crews of Titans. Knights are a separate organisation within the Imperium with their own rules and hierarchy, whereas the Titan Legions are part of the Mechanicus, who don't give a toss about your gender, just that you do your part within the greater workings of their organisation.

The current fluff of the Imperial Knights, as presented in the first codex and the tie-in novel present the image that the men go to war while the women run the court, presenting an interesting image of who actually holds the most power: the lads who run around killing things in their suits of armour, or the ladies, who clearly influence an awful lot behind the scenes and more or less run.. everything.

During the pre-Heresy era it was far more common for Nobles of either gender to pilot suits of armour, some of the examples given (though some names are awfully dodgy when it comes to determining a gender) in book IV, Conquest.

However, players should do as they see fit, I certainly do, House DuChess is nominally cognatic (either gender is eligible), though right now with heavy leanings towards the amazonian due to a bounty of healthy daughters and no sons.

1D4chan actually has an interesting Knight Household creator that allows for an awful lot of flexibility: https://1d4chan.org/wiki/Imperial_Knight_House_Creation_Tables

Back on topic though, here's hoping we can outfit the Imperial Knight with different weapon loadouts.

 BrookM wrote:
Knight Nobles are NOT the same as the crews of Titans. Knights are a separate organisation within the Imperium with their own rules and hierarchy, whereas the Titan Legions are part of the Mechanicus, who don't give a toss about your gender, just that you do your part within the greater workings of their organisation.

The current fluff of the Imperial Knights, as presented in the first codex and the tie-in novel present the image that the men go to war while the women run the court, presenting an interesting image of who actually holds the most power: the lads who run around killing things in their suits of armour, or the ladies, who clearly influence an awful lot behind the scenes and more or less run.. everything.

During the pre-Heresy era it was far more common for Nobles of either gender to pilot suits of armour, some of the examples given (though some names are awfully dodgy when it comes to determining a gender) in book IV, Conquest.

However, players should do as they see fit, I certainly do, House DuChess is nominally cognatic (either gender is eligible), though right now with heavy leanings towards the amazonian due to a bounty of healthy daughters and no sons.

1D4chan actually has an interesting Knight Household creator that allows for an awful lot of flexibility: https://1d4chan.org/wiki/Imperial_Knight_House_Creation_Tables

Back on topic though, here's hoping we can outfit the Imperial Knight with different weapon loadouts.

All good information, thanks!

And I agree, here's hoping we can tweak the Knight loadout - I want to see some gauntlet action.

Honestly, this looks absolutely horrible. Janky animation that looks like they only bothered to animate the torso of the model and just let bad ragdoll physics take care of the limbs, 360 backflip-noscoping Angelos in terminator armor, thunder hammer makes chomping sounds, each hit on anything generates a huge colorful explosion that covers half of the damn screen, atrocious MOBA-esque aesthetic and general color scheme, cover is gone, shotblockers are gone, heavy weapons setup and arcs are gone, "elite" units are restricted to 3 and must be chosen pre-game, you can grow space marines in like 30 seconds again and, on avarage, butcher a company of them in each battle.
I don't know how anybody can still have any hope for this game.

Yes because pre alpha build footage is always completely representative of the final product

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:
you can grow space marines in like 30 seconds again and, on avarage, butcher a company of them in each battle.
I don't know how anybody can still have any hope for this game.

I like killing loads of SM, so if there is an extension/DLC with Sisters of Battle, I might be interested.
It is pretty funny in DoW1 to set a SM IA in the highest difficulty level, rush some Sisters squad, and then trample over them like it's no big deal .


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frankenberry wrote:
I did actually! The higher quality allowed me to see more of the gameplay at a closer view. I'm sorry if my reply seemed snarky, it wasn't meant to be :(

Don't worry I was half joking, as I often do .

I'm willing to bet the finished game will hardly be any different to this super-early-alpha-please-dont-judje footage. Because this is anything but pre-alpha. Relic saying it is is simply lying in your face to shield themselves from criticism like it happened so many times before in the game industry.
They may improve AI or animation, but there is no way of changing garbadge MOBA aesthetic, lack of game mechanics and any tactical depth without a complete overhaul of the whole project and thay are not doing that. Especially not with statements that have been made by Relic about this game.

I am kinda wishing they would remake space marine where I could play as the warboss killing spacenoobs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:
I'm willing to bet the finished game will hardly be any different to this super-early-alpha-please-dont-judje footage. Because this is anything but pre-alpha. Relic saying it is is simply lying in your face to shield themselves from criticism like it happened so many times before in the game industry.
They may improve AI or animation, but there is no way of changing garbadge MOBA aesthetic, lack of game mechanics and any tactical depth without a complete overhaul of the whole project and thay are not doing that. Especially not with statements that have been made by Relic about this game.

I actually really like dow1 and if dow3 is like that it is my type of game. Fast pace, fast reaction 1 mistake and you could lose all the while balancing income spending dyeing and rebuilding vs upgrades and teching.
Vs dow 2 style build 2 core a move to point. Build 2 more units hit retreat when you see a guy half health and repeat.

Btw moba is where you control a single hero vs swarms of worthless crap ie. DoW2

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:
you can grow space marines in like 30 seconds again and, on avarage, butcher a company of them in each battle.
I don't know how anybody can still have any hope for this game.

I like killing loads of SM, so if there is an extension/DLC with Sisters of Battle, I might be interested.
It is pretty funny in DoW1 to set a SM IA in the highest difficulty level, rush some Sisters squad, and then trample over them like it's no big deal .

Well its ok for you if you don't care about the fluff. This game has much more severe problems though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

OgreChubbs wrote:
I am kinda wishing they would remake space marine where I could play as the warboss killing spacenoobs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:
I'm willing to bet the finished game will hardly be any different to this super-early-alpha-please-dont-judje footage. Because this is anything but pre-alpha. Relic saying it is is simply lying in your face to shield themselves from criticism like it happened so many times before in the game industry.
They may improve AI or animation, but there is no way of changing garbadge MOBA aesthetic, lack of game mechanics and any tactical depth without a complete overhaul of the whole project and thay are not doing that. Especially not with statements that have been made by Relic about this game.

I actually really like dow1 and if dow3 is like that it is my type of game. Fast pace, fast reaction 1 mistake and you could lose all the while balancing income spending dyeing and rebuilding vs upgrades and teching.
Vs dow 2 style build 2 core a move to point. Build 2 more units hit retreat when you see a guy half health and repeat.

Btw moba is where you control a single hero vs swarms of worthless crap ie. DoW2

Yeah, right, spending the beginning of each game building a bunch of junk to produce baneblades from scrap is the essense of hot fast-paced action.
Versus something like DoW 2 that clearly had only one character per faction, had no in-battle progression in multiplayer and all battles could be won by spamming retreat. How could I forget?

OgreChubbs wrote:
I actually really like dow1 [...] Fast pace, fast reaction 1 mistake and you could lose all the while balancing income spending dyeing and rebuilding

You said you like DoW1,then proceeded to describe something that isn't DoW1.

None of those things describe DoW1 at all. It is a slow, plodding game that actually manages to require MORE micromanagement than DoW2, has dumbed down resource management and a is more about who can spam the larger army than any tactical decision.

 Melissia wrote:

OgreChubbs wrote:
I actually really like dow1 [...] Fast pace, fast reaction 1 mistake and you could lose all the while balancing income spending dyeing and rebuilding

You said you like DoW1,then proceeded to describe something that isn't DoW1.

None of those things describe DoW1 at all. It is a slow, plodding game that actually manages to require MORE micromanagement than DoW2, has dumbed down resource management and a is more about who can spam the larger army than any tactical decision.

While I can't comment on the other aspects of your argument (haven't played DOW2) I don't recall DOW 1being particularity fast paced either.

 Melissia wrote:

OgreChubbs wrote:
I actually really like dow1 [...] Fast pace, fast reaction 1 mistake and you could lose all the while balancing income spending dyeing and rebuilding

You said you like DoW1,then proceeded to describe something that isn't DoW1.

None of those things describe DoW1 at all. It is a slow, plodding game that actually manages to require MORE micromanagement than DoW2, has dumbed down resource management and a is more about who can spam the larger army than any tactical decision.

If you've ever played against actual players, i.e. not computers - DoW1 can certainly become fast paced. Not the CoH-esque, squad-based combat that was DoW2, certainly, as it was a different scale of combat.

Also, I'm not sure, but I found myself micro-ing EVERY aspect of my army in DoW2 SP and MP, I couldn't leave a squad alone to achieve an objective because they'd just stand around and die. Then again, maybe I'm missing some subtle art of playing DoW2.

 Melissia wrote:

OgreChubbs wrote:
I actually really like dow1 [...] Fast pace, fast reaction 1 mistake and you could lose all the while balancing income spending dyeing and rebuilding

You said you like DoW1,then proceeded to describe something that isn't DoW1.

None of those things describe DoW1 at all. It is a slow, plodding game that actually manages to require MORE micromanagement than DoW2, has dumbed down resource management and a is more about who can spam the larger army than any tactical decision.

Thats is custom games and 3v3 and 4v4s

I only played 1v1 where you would split your army in 3's and 4's and try to engage his army while attacking 2 or 3 different points. Then try to manage upgrades based on his units.

If you mass teched to baneblades in a 1v1 you would have no points by the 5 minute mark.

Thats like saying there is no such things as running out of money in starcraft cause I played the money money money maps.

 Frankenberry wrote:
If you've ever played against actual players, i.e. not computers - DoW1 can certainly become fast paced.

I did. It was still pretty damn slow of an RTS game, especially compared to other RTS games. CnC was faster, Wargame was massively faster, anything on the Essence Engine was faster, Starcraft was faster, and so on and s oforth.

I'm not saying you can't like it. Just that I fundamentally disagree with the reasons you present that a new game should be based around its gameplay. DoW1 was okay for its time, but we've had better games since then-- and not just Essence Engine games, but other RTS games in general-- and I don't think we should revert to its flawed style of gameplay.

 Melissia wrote:

 Frankenberry wrote:
If you've ever played against actual players, i.e. not computers - DoW1 can certainly become fast paced.

I did. It was still pretty damn slow of an RTS game, especially compared to other RTS games. CnC was faster, Wargame was massively faster, anything on the Essence Engine was faster, Starcraft was faster, and so on and s oforth.

I'm not saying you can't like it. Just that I fundamentally disagree with the reasons you present that a new game should be based around its gameplay. DoW1 was okay for its time, but we've had better games since then-- and not just Essence Engine games, but other RTS games in general-- and I don't think we should revert to its flawed style of gameplay.

Flawed system? Base building and resource management is very fun and enjoyable. There is a reason why new games like the newest starcraft is dieing so fast where starcraft 1 still has tornies. Alot of younger people like no base building just run in and shoot shoot if halo crap taught us anything. Snipping while flying threw the air.

OgreChubbs wrote:
Base building and resource management is very fun and enjoyable.

You act like DoW1 and Starcraft are the only systems for base building and resource management out there. They aren't. They are amateur-hour base building at best. Not even really a good compromise between base building and the need for a faster gameflow, really.

Dude, they're not even the first, and they weren't even really at all innovative for their time of release. There were better systems for resource management out there before Starcraft was even released. That actually involve base building as more than an afterthought, unlike starcrapped.

I'm not saying "base building" is a flawed system. I'm saying the way these games implemented it was.

 Melissia wrote:

OgreChubbs wrote:
Base building and resource management is very fun and enjoyable.

You act like DoW1 and Starcraft are the only systems for base building and resource management out there. They aren't. They are amateur-hour base building at best. Not even really a good compromise between base building and the need for a faster gameflow, really.

Dude, they're not even the first, and they weren't even really at all innovative for their time of release. There were better systems for resource management out there before Starcraft was even released. That actually involve base building as more than an afterthought, unlike starcrapped.

I'm not saying "base building" is a flawed system. I'm saying the way these games implemented it was.

You are not reffering to total war or age of empires right? Those games where horrible, a real let down at best. There was also a game I tried log and ever ago where you could teraform the land and the game took years to do anything.

Oh I should add my favorite game as of now is warcraft 3 tft. So closer they get to that the better. And for a 40k game to be good I need to play as orks or eldar and get to kill lots of space marines.

OgreChubbs wrote:
You are not reffering to total war or age of empires right?

You say it's horrible, but Total War was, at the time of it and Starcraft's release-- Starcraft was released several months after, so it's as close to concurrent as it got at the time-- rated better by both reviewers AND players than Starcraft was. Starcraft gained much of its popularity later on, after Cavedog died to its own stupidity and inability to not waste money on pointless things. As for Age of Empires, I was never a big fan of it. It suffered from the same problems that Starcrapped did, really, and they had basically the exact same base building system in the end.

But I wasn't just referring to them in this case. Even old DOS games like War, Inc. had better base building and economics, never mind series like the Earth 21X0 series, KKnD, the Warlords: Battlecry series, and so on. I mean, War, Inc. even gave you the ability to invest in the stock market and made research and development something remotely approximating realistic. KKnD's base building was simplistic, yes, but at least it was less intrusive than Starcraft's, letting the game focus more on the combat and struggle over the resource supply outside of your base, than how well you can dance a few tiny drones about early game. The Earth 21X0 series had a massive amount of depth to its customization and base building, which many games are still drawing inspiration from today.

Barring Warlords: Battlecry (a game that's as much RPG as it is RTS), all of these were released earlier than starcraft, btw. There's far, far better things to draw from. We shouldn't be limiting ourselves to just a few ideas we repeat over and over again ad nauseum. That's what led to the RTS genre being basically dead for almost a decade in the first place.

 Melissia wrote:

OgreChubbs wrote:
You are not reffering to total war or age of empires right?

You say it's horrible, but Total War was, at the time of it and Starcraft's release-- Starcraft was released several months after, so it's as close to concurrent as it got at the time-- rated better by both reviewers AND players than Starcraft was. Starcraft gained much of its popularity later on, after Cavedog died to its own stupidity and inability to not waste money on pointless things. As for Age of Empires, I was never a big fan of it. It suffered from the same problems that Starcrapped did, really, and they had basically the exact same base building system in the end.

But I wasn't just referring to them in this case. Even old DOS games like War, Inc. had better base building and economics, never mind series like the Earth 21X0 series, KKnD, the Warlords: Battlecry series, and so on. I mean, War, Inc. even gave you the ability to invest in the stock market and made research and development something remotely approximating realistic. KKnD's base building was simplistic, yes, but at least it was less intrusive than Starcraft's, letting the game focus more on the combat and struggle over the resource supply outside of your base, than how well you can dance a few tiny drones about early game. The Earth 21X0 series had a massive amount of depth to its customization and base building, which many games are still drawing inspiration from today.

Barring Warlords: Battlecry (a game that's as much RPG as it is RTS), all of these were released earlier than starcraft, btw. There's far, far better things to draw from. We shouldn't be limiting ourselves to just a few ideas we repeat over and over again ad nauseum. That's what led to the RTS genre being basically dead for almost a decade in the first place.

You say those games but I never heard of them at all. I am sure they where ok games but unless it had a very competive scene I did not follow it, sorry but they all sound to old for my genre.

When did RTS die out? They where all I ever really played shooters where always more focused on kids. You run around shoot never need to have any real strat or planning. The role play group where always the creepy people who rather then be good at something just played alot then complained when they where not rewarded. Mmm whats left mmorpg think thats the name were for people who were..........mmm a special type for sure lol.

But rts kept me busy for years.

Started with warcraft 2 , starcraft, warcraft 3 , age of mythology, age of legends, warcraft tft then star crfat 2 but I also stoped playing alot of games after kids and wife.

Too many games now are not for me, I liked the aspect where if you spent 2 hours playing it if you where good you could be top tier. Now a days people are not rewarded for being good but for playing alot. People want to play for 60 hours and have some magical item that makes them better. I find they took away from gaming when they gave it to the scrub. Which is why RTS will always be special to me..... Unless they turn it into that again lol.

Long story short if it is like dow 2 the kid crowd will rush it, it will get good reviews be dead in weeks. The only people who will be left will be the last stand crowd again rewarded for time spent not skill. If it is like dow1 it will have alot of internet complainers and have tons of people moding it and will keep a steady crowd for years.