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.

Joey wrote:

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.

I believe the multiplayer is what's being referred to. Frankly I didn't enjoy the campaign massively, but the mplayer is definitely where the game shined. Unfortunately, just like CoH, any game that records my stats tends to get me stressed (I don't know why, I'm just a fool...). I'm getting better at dealing with failure lately, so maybe I will go back to it... but few other games will have you on the edge of your seat the way they do. DoW 2 gets you into the action quickly, slices out all the base building and resource management nonsense and just focuses on tactics. And ranked gameplay is *very* competitive. It's not at all easy and requires a bit more brainpower than 'LOLBLOB' (DoW 1)

Melissia wrote: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.

Sweet, maybe I'll have to grit my teeth and try to figure out how to play it again.

Joey wrote:DOW 2 sucked, this is universally acknowledged.
Seems the scale for DOW3 will be a whole lot bigger.

Sounds like you are just the guy that sucks at DoW2.


Everyone I know prefers DoW2 to DoW1, and the greater they are a 40k fan the more vehemently they prefer the sequel.

Face it: DoW1 is a comedic derp fest with no semblance of decent plot, and a cookie cutter campaign where you do the same build-base-destroy-enemy-base every game.

The "fact" that DoW1 is preferred to DoW2 is an Internet Opinion.

DoW2 blows DoW1 out of the water in gameplay depth, voice acting, environments, campaign, multiplayer competitiveness, graphic direction, and every other area that does not concern "but I want to auto-reinforce my blob of 70 guardsmen for 4 minutes while they exchange fire with my enemy's blob of 50 space marines who have 5 heavy bolters per squad"

EDIT: The one advantage that DoW1 had over DoW2 is the base building, which I find extremely fun in any game. But it's not the key factor in a strategy game.

I think DoW 1 is the go-to for 'epic battles' at a company-scale where one can just marvel at the sheer spectacle of it all... it's fun to watch.

DoW 2 feels more like the tabletop, with limited gameplay and a more 'real' feel.

ph34r wrote:

Joey wrote:DOW 2 sucked, this is universally acknowledged.
Seems the scale for DOW3 will be a whole lot bigger.

Sounds like you are just the guy that sucks at DoW2.


Everyone I know prefers DoW2 to DoW1, and the greater they are a 40k fan the more vehemently they prefer the sequel.

Face it: DoW1 is a comedic derp fest with no semblance of decent plot, and a cookie cutter campaign where you do the same build-base-destroy-enemy-base every game.

The "fact" that DoW1 is preferred to DoW2 is an Internet Opinion.

DoW2 blows DoW1 out of the water in gameplay depth, voice acting, environments, campaign, multiplayer competitiveness, graphic direction, and every other area that does not concern "but I want to auto-reinforce my blob of 70 guardsmen for 4 minutes while they exchange fire with my enemy's blob of 50 space marines who have 5 heavy bolters per squad"

EDIT: The one advantage that DoW1 had over DoW2 is the base building, which I find extremely fun in any game. But it's not the key factor in a strategy game.

But I play 40k desktop...and DOW1. And everyone I know who plays TT prefers DOW1 because DOW2 is terminally dull.
I think this is like the history nerds hating Rome Total War thing. You clearly take your hobbies really seriously so you rage out at the thought of NO DEMOLISHERS OMG or WHY INFANTRY SQUADS HAVE NO FLAMERS RAHGHHGH.
If you actually look at DOW as a *game* rather than a tapletop replica of a tabletop game (which it is not) it's hard to objectively place it over DOW1.

The two are too different to fairly compare. It's going to come down to personal preferences. I don't think one can objectively be ranked above the other.

DoW 1 is for relative traditionalists (though the resource system isn't incredibly deep, I suppose... but the emphasis on research/tech trees, etc. still remains).

DoW 2 is more about getting units out into the action quickly with no fuss; the fact that all your base functions can be accessed with just one key stroke, without your view even leaving the battlefield, testifies to this. It's more fast-paced and focused on reactions and tactics. Yet the lack of base building, resource juggling 'n' worker units might offend some.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh and ofc DoW 1 literally has you chewing through *companies* of Space Marines... DoW 2 is on a more believable scale... well, until you play as Tyranids or Orks, the former definitely does not seem to be the massive horde it should be.

Henners91 wrote:The two are too different to fairly compare.

This cannot be stressed enough, but from the looks of things it sure can be ignored.

DoW 2 and DoW 1 are not even in the same sub-genre.


DoW 2: Retribution is not in the same sub-genre as the above as well. Were talking not just apples and oranges here people, were talking apples and cars.

Lets get back to discussing DoW 3! Were all WH40k fans here, lets come up with awesome and crazy speculation about DoW 3 shall we?

Joey wrote:But I play 40k desktop...and DOW1. And everyone I know who plays TT prefers DOW1 because DOW2 is terminally dull.
I think this is like the history nerds hating Rome Total War thing. You clearly take your hobbies really seriously so you rage out at the thought of NO DEMOLISHERS OMG or WHY INFANTRY SQUADS HAVE NO FLAMERS RAHGHHGH.
If you actually look at DOW as a *game* rather than a tapletop replica of a tabletop game (which it is not) it's hard to objectively place it over DOW1.

Hahahaha what the hell? You just made my argument for me; thanks.

DoW2 is indeed vastly superior as a *game*.

Also, the whole "You hate DoW1 because YOU RAGE AT THE FLUFF RARWWRWRW" strawman was priceless. Keep it up

Melissia wrote: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.

You are such a hilariously dopey person, decrying people for having the temerity to question you on what you think. You also glossed over what I said about the two games being utterly different in style.

Melissia wrote:
>Yeah, it means that you don't know many people.

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

>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.

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

>so what's your point (assuming you have any)?

Melissia, you've really got to stop trying to belittle people when you're in a discussion with them, Its just making you look really bad. Just have a back-and-forth without the added insults.

But what would the internet be without NERD RAEG?

I probably do suck at DoW2, the reason being the game bored me to tears and I never could get into it. If I could have got into, and stuck with the game, then I would hope that I would be as good as I am at DoW, which is probably above average, or used to be as I don't play as much as I used to.

DoW2 just never grabbed me the same way as the first did, it just seemed slow. I liked aspects of it, the cover set up, the retreat feature - stuff like that and yeah the graphics were much better. But it had lost everything that made the original games great.

What other posters are saying is true, that they are different genres and shouldn't be compared, I guess that's what should be gone with. I for one would be happy for a return to the glory days of the original game.

More than likely though I will need to buy a new PC.

DoW2 is frustrating and lags/game slows down if your computer is not up to standards. The most fun and engaging part for me in DoW2 is the campaign; gearing up your squads of Blood Angels and experiencing their journey through the story is cool.

DoW1 is more direct and tangible with "make units" "assemble giant blob of units" "now your giant blob fights their giant blob" with millions of lasers and bolts flying across the screen. That definitely appeals to some people, and it appealed to me, I just grew a bit tired of that. DoW2 is fresh, has a high amount of attention to detail, and is pretty fun.

DoW 2 is actually a more compressed and advanced version of the Warcraft 3 genre. Hero centered and unit supported combat.

I love DoW and DoW 2 both. Retribution got me hooked on Warhammer 40k in the first place.

ph34r wrote:DoW2 is frustrating and lags/game slows down if your computer is not up to standards. The most fun and engaging part for me in DoW2 is the campaign; gearing up your squads of Blood Angels and experiencing their journey through the story is cool.

See, I didn't feel it at all. The first game, that was a decent storyline, DoW2 to just doesn't feel anywhere near as awesome to me. Yeah, it's got a better campaign/story to it than say Soulstorm or Dark Crusade but the first game just was better imo.

ph34r wrote:DoW1 is more direct and tangible with "make units" "assemble giant blob of units" "now your giant blob fights their giant blob" with millions of lasers and bolts flying across the screen. That definitely appeals to some people, and it appealed to me, I just grew a bit tired of that. DoW2 is fresh, has a high amount of attention to detail, and is pretty fun.

For a long game, for sure, but for a 1v1, it can be over with only a few units easy enough. Nothing quite like those full army uber battles though. No turrets mind, I hate turret spam.

Alexzandvar wrote:DoW 2 is actually a more compressed and advanced version of the Warcraft 3 genre.

No.


WC3 didn't even come up with the "hero led army", but still, no.

I liked Warcraft 3. I think people confuse it with WOW and it suffers as a result, it's a damn good video game with a damn good storyline.
DOW is nothing like it. It was pretty groundbreaking when it came along. Everything before it was basically a Age of Empires clone. Harvest resources, do boring gak, yada yada yada.
Suddenly you had actual squads and they actually engaged each other during melée.

That wandered around in perfect marching order in little cubes of soldier.

The average computer in 2005 wouldn't have been able to handle 200+ little models all calculating the best place to stand. The pathfinding is bad enough as it is.

Indeed, there were many, many problems with DoW1.

DOW 1 was a great rts. The campaign became complete crap later on in the expansions, and the net code for the game was terrible.

DOW2 is a different genre, and should have never of carried the DOW name, but it did for marketing, and it worked, sort of.

I hope DOW3, when released, is a real successor to DOW1.

Why shouldn't it have carried the DoW name? It was a Warhammer 40,000 RTS made by Relic... that's pretty much what I think when I hear 'DoW'.

Henners91 wrote:Why shouldn't it have carried the DoW name? It was a Warhammer 40,000 RTS made by Relic... that's pretty much what I think when I hear 'DoW'.

DOW2 is not an RTS. RTS involves building bases by conventional definition. DOW2 is a different genre than DOW is. This isn't really that big of a deal in and of itself, and I personally am not bothered by dow2 being called dow2, but...

Many fans of the first game expected the follow up to be a building based game, and when it wasn't, there was a back lash.

The backlash could have been avoided by simply calling the game something - anything else.

Now, I am sure the response will be "it is an rts, and rts can be defined by many things". And I would say you are missing the point. Fans of DOW got used to building bases as a hallmark of an rts game, so when dow2 came out, labeled as an rts, most were disappointed when the game was vastly different than the original. That is all.

I feel the game could have better serviced by divorcing itself from DOW.

BuFFo wrote:DOW2 is not an RTS.

Yes it is.

BuFFo wrote: RTS involves building bases

Only according to your bizarre and arbitrary (see also irrelevant and pointless) alternate definition of the term.

BuFFo wrote:

Henners91 wrote:Why shouldn't it have carried the DoW name? It was a Warhammer 40,000 RTS made by Relic... that's pretty much what I think when I hear 'DoW'.

DOW2 is not an RTS. RTS involves building bases by conventional definition. DOW2 is a different genre than DOW is. This isn't really that big of a deal in and of itself, and I personally am not bothered by dow2 being called dow2, but...

Many fans of the first game expected the follow up to be a building based game, and when it wasn't, there was a back lash.

The backlash could have been avoided by simply calling the game something - anything else.

Now, I am sure the response will be "it is an rts, and rts can be defined by many things". And I would say you are missing the point. Fans of DOW got used to building bases as a hallmark of an rts game, so when dow2 came out, labeled as an rts, most were disappointed when the game was vastly different than the original. That is all.

I feel the game could have better serviced by divorcing itself from DOW.

That's a good point. If DOW2 had been more clear what it was I wouldn't have been bothered by it. Like Space Marine, cool there's another 40k game, but not for me.
DOW2 was closer to Fallout Tactics than DOW1, in my opinion.

Melissia wrote:

BuFFo wrote:DOW2 is not an RTS.

Yes it is.

BuFFo wrote: RTS involves building bases

Only according to your bizarre and arbitrary (see also irrelevant and pointless) alternate definition of the term.

While I'm not a fan of your particular language, I have to agree with you. DoW2 is, strictly speaking, an RTS game. I quote:

Wikipedia wrote:In a RTS, as in other wargames, the participants position and maneuver units and structures under their control to secure areas of the map and/or destroy their opponents' assets. In a typical RTS, it is possible to create additional units and structures during the course of a game.
...
More specifically, the typical game of the RTS genre features resource gathering, base building, in-game technological development and indirect control of units.

DoW2 requires you to position and maneuver units and structures (building turrets, and setting their facings) to secure areas of the map (taking control points) and/or destroy your opponents' assets (destroying their HQ building in an Annihilation game). DoW2 features resource gathering and in-game technological development. Just because it lacks base-building doesn't mean it's not an RTS. Just a slightly atypical one.

Just thought I'd throw that out there.

Let me first state that my preferances lie directly with DoW1, and not DoW2, but I would like to give my two cents here; DoW2 is possibly the only real RTS I've played. RTS stands for Real Time Strategy, but most RTS' don't involve any strategy at all. Starcraft/Starcraft II, for insance, are basically "See what your opponent is building and then build it's direct counter". Warcraft III, during my time playing it, was nothing more than "Build one unit type that can attack anything and get a master clusterfeth in the middle, whomever has more upgrades wins".

Now you look at DoW2, and it's much more "Ok, we move this guy here and there, our heavy support is getting flanked, get them behind cover and jump our hoppy toads over to negate that threat, our guys in the bunker are getting grenaded, get them out of there, they destroyed our cover, move them to another set. GRENADE OUT! Supress their fire support, move up secure objective, drop our deep strikers behind them to sandvich them between our forces." You actually have to be able to react and strategize in real time, unlike almost every other RTS where you mash units together and then try to figure out what went wrong afterward during the Force Building Phase again.


Brutal Legend is still the best, though. METAL!

Just throwing it out there, I loved Dawn of War 1, I still play it... Dawn of War 2... it does nothing for me... It looks nice, the character customization is fun, but the gameplay itself is not my cup of tea.

If we want to get real anal about this, we might start throwing around 'RTT'... that's how WiC marketed itself... a game wherein base building is eliminated and it's all about seizing ground with units that are rapidly called in... DoW is certainly on the tactical scale, there's no 'strategy' to it; that word implies a macro focus. The only real 'strategy' games are grand strategies or any game that deals with war at the operational level

As for 'Space Marine' being a success 'n' all... well, if games nowdays are anything to go by, you if you're releasing similar games within one genre, you want them to have the same name for selling reasons. To THQ, DoW is a leading product; hell, it's probably one of their few brands that actually made them a profit. Ergo, they like to have the games under a 'family' so they can plug 'em out. It's a worrying trend: Assassin's Creed Revelations, Mass Effect, Call of Duty: Cranking games out like a production line to keep farming fans for money. Admittedly ME isn't quite as bad as the other two as it doesn't literally suspend the story to justify another cheap game 'plugging the gap' ala AC: Brotherhood... Though I would argue that ME2 sorta did, but I think I can only accuse games of unnecessary spammage once they pass the trilogy mark.