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.

ChocolateGork wrote:Exact opposite here.

I disliked the removal of base building and the implementation of resource points being evenly spread across the entire map and being absolutely crucial to victory.

Every player who liked to play defensively or turtle(hide then send a giant wave (usually of high tier troops) late game, or win through means other than annihilation, Got completely screwed.

The player now has to be constantly building units, losing units, recapturing points, moving units, attacking with units and capturing points.

It killed a playstlyle. And its one of the reasons why DOW2 was disappointing to a lot of DOW 1 players.

Played Last stand alot however.

I realize that base building doesn't constitute the removal of that playstyle, But the removal of free effective turret building and the inability to do much with in base resources does.

ALSO THAT IS AN AWESOME MOD! Thanks!

A separate thread should be opened to spread awareness of such awesome

Agree totally
In fact my friends and I did that very same tactic, turtle the game because we liked large battles and we liked playing defensively
In DoW 2 I'm forced to send my units to capture points constantly, only to find them taken back two seconds later and it boils down to a game of tag, constantly having to take back points and never really attacking properly because its all to spread out
It gets so frustrating

Plus the bloody AI NEVER respond to a threat like they did in DoW1, they just stand there until i give the command to attack
I just want it to go back to Dow 1's style honestly, I have fond memories of it and even playing it today its still fun because it appeals to me
I can't knock the campaign though for Dow2, its much better than any of the first games

In DoW 2 I'm forced to send my units to capture points constantly, only to find them taken back two seconds later and it boils down to a game of tag, constantly having to take back points and never really attacking properly because its all to spread out
It gets so frustrating

..."proper"? Oh, jeez...

I like the "turtle, build up, giant brawl" thing too. I haven't been all that tempted by DoW 2 once I found out it didn't let me do that. I understand why people find base building repetative though.

Base building can be a bit boring but DoW lets you build bases which are shot out of a Battle Barge in orbit and dug out of the crater by servitors. That is the opposite of boring.

The time you invest on a MMO could get you into a few table-game, talk face to face with a real person, get drunk together and have some real fun.

The mmo market is saturated with Free-to-play model now, which in reality is the masking of micro-transaction. It's like crack, the first hit is always free that's how the developers earn their money. MMO is also a high-risk business model due to the demand of the hardware service (servers, bandwidth, customer support...)compare to traditional method.

Still, if DAW3's gameplay is like what the Civ series is (play through email or web by turn), I might get hook.

Asuron wrote:

ChocolateGork wrote:Exact opposite here.

I disliked the removal of base building and the implementation of resource points being evenly spread across the entire map and being absolutely crucial to victory.

Every player who liked to play defensively or turtle(hide then send a giant wave (usually of high tier troops) late game, or win through means other than annihilation, Got completely screwed.

The player now has to be constantly building units, losing units, recapturing points, moving units, attacking with units and capturing points.

It killed a playstlyle. And its one of the reasons why DOW2 was disappointing to a lot of DOW 1 players.

Played Last stand alot however.

I realize that base building doesn't constitute the removal of that playstyle, But the removal of free effective turret building and the inability to do much with in base resources does.

ALSO THAT IS AN AWESOME MOD! Thanks!

A separate thread should be opened to spread awareness of such awesome

Agree totally
In fact my friends and I did that very same tactic, turtle the game because we liked large battles and we liked playing defensively
In DoW 2 I'm forced to send my units to capture points constantly, only to find them taken back two seconds later and it boils down to a game of tag, constantly having to take back points and never really attacking properly because its all to spread out
It gets so frustrating

Plus the bloody AI NEVER respond to a threat like they did in DoW1, they just stand there until i give the command to attack
I just want it to go back to Dow 1's style honestly, I have fond memories of it and even playing it today its still fun because it appeals to me
I can't knock the campaign though for Dow2, its much better than any of the first games

I know what you mean, Multi-player is horrible and is boring without upgrading large units and creating bases. I don't want to constantly take the same point because 5 Squads and 3 turrets takes up my entire army. Campaigns OK and the Last-stand is great but all together the Multi-player is terrible.

Asuron wrote:

ChocolateGork wrote:Exact opposite here.

I disliked the removal of base building and the implementation of resource points being evenly spread across the entire map and being absolutely crucial to victory.

Every player who liked to play defensively or turtle(hide then send a giant wave (usually of high tier troops) late game, or win through means other than annihilation, Got completely screwed.

The player now has to be constantly building units, losing units, recapturing points, moving units, attacking with units and capturing points.

It killed a playstlyle. And its one of the reasons why DOW2 was disappointing to a lot of DOW 1 players.

Played Last stand alot however.

I realize that base building doesn't constitute the removal of that playstyle, But the removal of free effective turret building and the inability to do much with in base resources does.

ALSO THAT IS AN AWESOME MOD! Thanks!

A separate thread should be opened to spread awareness of such awesome

Agree totally
In fact my friends and I did that very same tactic, turtle the game because we liked large battles and we liked playing defensively
In DoW 2 I'm forced to send my units to capture points constantly, only to find them taken back two seconds later and it boils down to a game of tag, constantly having to take back points and never really attacking properly because its all to spread out
It gets so frustrating

Plus the bloody AI NEVER respond to a threat like they did in DoW1, they just stand there until i give the command to attack
I just want it to go back to Dow 1's style honestly, I have fond memories of it and even playing it today its still fun because it appeals to me
I can't knock the campaign though for Dow2, its much better than any of the first games

Your problem is playing against the AI. It rarely does anything but cap and decap.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Alkasyn wrote:

Asuron wrote:

ChocolateGork wrote:Exact opposite here.

I disliked the removal of base building and the implementation of resource points being evenly spread across the entire map and being absolutely crucial to victory.

Every player who liked to play defensively or turtle(hide then send a giant wave (usually of high tier troops) late game, or win through means other than annihilation, Got completely screwed.

The player now has to be constantly building units, losing units, recapturing points, moving units, attacking with units and capturing points.

It killed a playstlyle. And its one of the reasons why DOW2 was disappointing to a lot of DOW 1 players.

Played Last stand alot however.

I realize that base building doesn't constitute the removal of that playstyle, But the removal of free effective turret building and the inability to do much with in base resources does.

ALSO THAT IS AN AWESOME MOD! Thanks!

A separate thread should be opened to spread awareness of such awesome

Agree totally
In fact my friends and I did that very same tactic, turtle the game because we liked large battles and we liked playing defensively
In DoW 2 I'm forced to send my units to capture points constantly, only to find them taken back two seconds later and it boils down to a game of tag, constantly having to take back points and never really attacking properly because its all to spread out
It gets so frustrating

Plus the bloody AI NEVER respond to a threat like they did in DoW1, they just stand there until i give the command to attack
I just want it to go back to Dow 1's style honestly, I have fond memories of it and even playing it today its still fun because it appeals to me
I can't knock the campaign though for Dow2, its much better than any of the first games

Your problem is playing against the AI. It rarely does anything but cap and decap.

blood reaper wrote:
I know what you mean, Multi-player is horrible and is boring without upgrading large units and creating bases. I don't want to constantly take the same point because 5 Squads and 3 turrets takes up my entire army. Campaigns OK and the Last-stand is great but all together the Multi-player is terrible.

This is simply not a game for you. It's definitely not horrible.

Da Boss wrote:I like the "turtle, build up, giant brawl" thing too. I haven't been all that tempted by DoW 2 once I found out it didn't let me do that. I understand why people find base building repetative though.

Plenty of other games do that. The thing with Dawn of War 1 though, is turtling didn't work outside of easy skirmishes either. It was incredibly easy to deny resources to someone who turtled and take the majority, leaving them with nothing to build replacements with.

Reading early design diaries about Dawn of War 1 ages ago, they were trying to get rid of base building then as well, and had it down to as minimal as possible. It was obvious they were going to move to removing bases even further in DoW 2 from those early diaries. They started with resource collection in DoW 1, forcing players out of their base to capture resource points. Dawn of War 2 was the next logical step, focusing it even further on the action rather than the base.

I wouldn't be surprised to even see home bases gone in Dawn of War 3.

I am willing to concede that DOW2, and the removal of base-building, is slightly more analogous to tabletop 40K then base-building DOW1 was. That being said, it wasn't as fun to me. I don't play hardcore flight sims because they aren't fun, even if they are more accurate then say, Ace Combat. I don't mind that DOW1 was a 40K based RTS because it was fun as hell. DOW2 was very much an RTT and I just didn't enjoy it as much :/

What would be a real step forward would be to literally do it just like the tabletop: go all in. Start off with 500pts and basic troop units and transports, do it as a turn based game (like the Blood Bowl PC game) and then as you conquer areas, increase the points cost to 2k games with unlocked everything. Sounds... kinda fun. Not very dynamic, but Vassal with an AI might be alright with good voice acting and such.

Also, make it so the computer is constantly trying to nudge models on your turn, misinterprets rules, or leaves mid-game, and have randomly generated arguments, and then it would be totally realistic. Oops, now it's totally realistic and much less fun.


Yeah, i liked base building.

Sidstyler wrote:

In DoW 2 I'm forced to send my units to capture points constantly, only to find them taken back two seconds later and it boils down to a game of tag, constantly having to take back points and never really attacking properly because its all to spread out
It gets so frustrating

..."proper"? Oh, jeez...

Yes proper, as in I didnt like spreading out my units in a way which never let me properly attack
They are normally too spread out to ever effectively deal with a problem in force which irritates me

Then I think Alkasyn had it right, maybe these types of games aren't really for you if you don't like how the game works.

Sidstyler wrote:Then I think Alkasyn had it right, maybe these types of games aren't really for you if you don't like how the game works.

Strange considering how I liked the first game and reguarly play other RTS, playing everything from Supreme Commander to Battle for Middle Earth, to Warcraft 3
Its only the multiplayer in this which i have a problem
Honestly I bought DoW2 expecting a more refined version of DoW1, instead I got a completely different game.

Finally made an account to add my opinion to all this.

Anyway, i think that's exactly why some people do not like DoW2, because they expected DoW1. instead Relic decided they wanted to try something new, and people bit them in the backside because it wasn't a shinier DoW1. dont get me wrong, DoW1 was great (soulstorm not included) but I'm glad they decided a new direction for it, rather than just tarting up the same game. because that's what activision does.

i personally like DoW2 because the smaller unit limit makes you care a little more about each unit and allows for more specific and directed tactics, which is why the cover mechanic from CoH was implemented.

Anyway, back on topic.

the first impressions from DoW3 are tbh, mixed. i like the concept of a persistent online multiplayer. if anyone has played chromehounds MP (RIP man, it was a good game) that's kinda what they are aiming for. i hope that last stand makes another appearance but obviously abit more refined this time. and hopefully tied into the persistent multiplayer. i always thought a RB6: Vegas style terrorist hunt with your individually units could be pretty cool if done right and would definitely add to the persistent world.

my major concern is this "a more digital free-to-play experience". does that mean that there is going to be more DLC/micro transactions? if so, is it only going to be shiny skins and alternative weapon skins? or are they going to kill the game before release by pulling out the powerful gear for paying customers?

we'll have to wait till august until these questions are answered.

I love both games for what they are BUT I always had more fun on MP with DoW 1.

I remember the days of me and my friend playing against the hardest AI and just having battles for ages and ages. It was fun but it wasn't new. It was just cool because it was 40k.

DoW 2 is brilliant in the fact you have to micro-manage a lot but we both never really got on with MP that much. The campaign was great though and that trumped DoW 1 easily.

It's a tough call when it comes to MP and RTS games. I think sometimes the simple ones shine through...or maybe I'm just getting old?

Red Alert anyone? ;-)

Asuron wrote:

Sidstyler wrote:Then I think Alkasyn had it right, maybe these types of games aren't really for you if you don't like how the game works.

Strange considering how I liked the first game and reguarly play other RTS, playing everything from Supreme Commander to Battle for Middle Earth, to Warcraft 3
Its only the multiplayer in this which i have a problem
Honestly I bought DoW2 expecting a more refined version of DoW1, instead I got a completely different game.

Sidstyler wrote:Then I think Alkasyn had it right, maybe these types of games aren't really for you if you don't like how the game works.

Again, Asuron, DoW 2 is not a game for you. It's not a regular RTS like the titles you mentioned. That is all.

Ouze wrote:What would be a real step forward would be to literally do it just like the tabletop: go all in. Start off with 500pts and basic troop units and transports, do it as a turn based game (like the Blood Bowl PC game) and then as you conquer areas, increase the points cost to 2k games with unlocked everything.

You mean like Final Liberation?

http://www.forceforgood.co.uk/reviewpage.php?selected=28 <3

A sequel to that game would be truly awesome ...

Ouze wrote:

carabine wrote:Now if only they'd start supporting on board graphics like every other developer in this day and age I'd actually get to play.

... Like which, actually? I can't think of a single PC AAA title that did support integrated graphics in the last few years, other then maybe WoW. Seems strange to spend developer time on a market segment that explicitly indicated they were not interested in gaming by their choice in hardware purchases.

Blizzard has been supporting on board graphics for years, also DOW 1 could run on onboard, EVE online can even run with an onboard chipset and that game goes nuts with graphics.

Fact is that onboard graphics are becomming more and more common and developers are starting to notice. I only got this laptop because it specs were technically all around better than my last and with most games I play it shows. DOW 2 simply does not support onboard and therefore I can't even get out of the gate.

Lynata wrote:

Ouze wrote:What would be a real step forward would be to literally do it just like the tabletop: go all in. Start off with 500pts and basic troop units and transports, do it as a turn based game (like the Blood Bowl PC game) and then as you conquer areas, increase the points cost to 2k games with unlocked everything.

You mean like Final Liberation?

http://www.forceforgood.co.uk/reviewpage.php?selected=28 <3

A sequel to that game would be truly awesome ...

Yes, exactly! That sounds pretty nice, and I bet would look amazing with an updated graphics engine. They could use the DOW2 engine, but give it a different banner name and keep DOW for the RTT line.

It's so odd to me that so many of you dislike DoWII for being exactly what it was meant to be. It was never supposed to be like DoWI. It never promised to be. You can't turtleblitz in DoWII because the developers know that that is a stupid, unrealistic way to win a battle, and it involves very little intelligence or quick thinking. People who don't like intelligence and quick thinking in their RTS games are not going to like DoWII.

I'll be the first to admit, I was skeptical about DoWII at first, and I didn't like the smaller scale of the battles. But once I got used to the rhythm of how to use which troops in DoWII, all other RTS games have felt so clunky and laden with unnecessary management which waters down the fun with inane, boggy arbitrations. If you like watered-down fun and inane, boggy arbitrations, you probably won't like DoWII. It is too pure an RTS for some people. I think it separates the strategically-minded from the sluggish.

On topic: I'm excited that we're finally getting some word about DoWIII. I hope it's as different from II as II was from I. I have no use for a sequel that tries to mimic its ancestors. Too much of that going on these days...

It's a little more harsh than I'd put it, but I agree with Archonate. If you like more traditional kinds of RTS, play DoW. If you prefer the small-scale skirmishes, play DoW2. If you prefer whatever DoW3 turns into, then play that.

Archonate wrote:If you like watered-down fun and inane, boggy arbitrations, you probably won't like DoWII. It is too pure an RTS for some people. I think it separates the strategically-minded from the sluggish.

I think people who don't apparently know the difference between a real-time tactical game and a real-time strategy game perhaps should not be so insulting.

In my opinion, it was not unrealistic to expect the sequel to Dawn of War to also be in the same genre of game.

I think their press material and advertisements made the distinctions in games and genre clear.

The whole RTS vs RTT distinction, is really just distinction for the sake of distinction; what I mean by that is when the term RTS was first used it was used in a larger way that encompassed a broader category gaming experiance... that as a result of certain games' strong success the characterization of the genre was made more concrete. Thus games that previously would have been categorized as RTS had to call themselves something different... some ended up branding themselves as RTT as an emphasis of the smaller scope.

While fun for being 40k... DoW was a pretty unoriginal RTS.

What I didn't like about DoW2 was the awkard button mapping of skills to units. It just made effectively using the skills of my all units in sync a nightmare

I couldn't get excited about this even if I tried; because I know my race will not make it in; like how it didnt make it in DoW2. Mod support will probably be as bad as DoW2 again; so meh.

I like one and two. Yes I miss things from the first game but there are plenty of other good details not in the first edition. One is a strategical game while the other is tactical.

For 3 I think they should stick to the tactical model for campaigns and bring back the skirmish/MP play of the first game. That would be perfect in my mind.

And I also have limited excitement due to knowing my Tau will not be represented.

Archonate wrote:It's so odd to me that so many of you dislike DoWII for being exactly what it was meant to be. It was never supposed to be like DoWI. It never promised to be. You can't turtleblitz in DoWII because the developers know that that is a stupid, unrealistic way to win a battle, and it involves very little intelligence or quick thinking. People who don't like intelligence and quick thinking in their RTS games are not going to like DoWII.

I'll be the first to admit, I was skeptical about DoWII at first, and I didn't like the smaller scale of the battles. But once I got used to the rhythm of how to use which troops in DoWII, all other RTS games have felt so clunky and laden with unnecessary management which waters down the fun with inane, boggy arbitrations. If you like watered-down fun and inane, boggy arbitrations, you probably won't like DoWII. It is too pure an RTS for some people. I think it separates the strategically-minded from the sluggish.

On topic: I'm excited that we're finally getting some word about DoWIII. I hope it's as different from II as II was from I. I have no use for a sequel that tries to mimic its ancestors. Too much of that going on these days...

I like this guy, defending something you like should always end with you insulting everyone who doesn't agree with you
By the way I like your comment on "realism" there.
I wasn't aware running around the map capturing resource nodes and power nodes was realistic and how armies won battles.
Nor that building your army with resources and the best equipment before you attack wasn't intelligent

You sir are a gentleman and a scholar

Archonate wrote:It's so odd to me that so many of you dislike DoWII for being exactly what it was meant to be. It was never supposed to be like DoWI. It never promised to be.

Ignoring the bits of your post that are more inflammatory, as an avid DoW 1 fan who really doesn't play much of DoW2 at all in spite of owning each title in the series, I think that this exactly is the whole problem with DoW2 vs DoW1.

Why even call it DoW2 if it is nothing like the original save for using GW artwork? It's like making a movie called Captain America: Origins Unbound, where Cap is a Jewish boy living in the Third Reich in the late 1930s, and he has powers over magnetism that he discovers when his family is taken from the ghetto to a death camp, skewing his outlook for life.

It's not a bad origins story at all, but the question is WTF does Captain America have to do with any of it?

That's how I felt going from DoW1 to DoW2. It was just a giant 'WTF'? If you're building a restaurant called 'McDonald's', complete with golden arches, but it sells high-end vegan nouveau cuisine at $30 a plate, then I don't care if it's the best damned nouveau vegan cuisine in the world, I'm going to be pissed off when I can't find a dollar cheeseburger.

^ best comparison ever.

Also: Wow @ poster calling other people unintelligent because they like DoW1 more than its sequel. Just wow.

sourclams wrote:Why even call it DoW2 if it is nothing like the original save for using GW artwork?
...

I thought the transition made perfect sense. It follows after the events of the previous games, using the same protagonist chapter as they deal with the repercussions of their participation in those previous conflicts. The in game justification for the emphasis tactical combat is because, the chapter supposedly lost more than half its numbers, and had to distribute its forces more thinly. This was a big jab at the first game where players could and would sacrifice hundreds of marines over the course of the campaign.

By emphasizing tactical combat it brought the scope of the game down to a level where the protagonists were able to shine and actually come closer to representing what they're suppose to be. Does that diminish the flexibility of the game to represent other factions?-Yes. Does it mean moving away from the bureaucratic game play of yesteryear?-Yes.

Let's face it. You're all going to get DoW3 anyway just because you like watching your 40k armies come to life

Who doesn't like sync kills