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.

@Shuma

I found the damage/armor types, and I see how they work, but I still disagree that a Space Marine's rifle/Hydralisk spines does full damage to a Battlecruiser/Carrier given they are enormous. That is absurd to me, as those units shouldn't even be able to hit a battle cruiser. I know it is that way for balance, but I don't have to agree with it.

I cannot find anything about any cover systems.

I found the damage/armor types, and I see how they work, but I still disagree that a Space Marine's rifle/Hydralisk spines does full damage to a Battlecruiser/Carrier given they are enormous.

A battlecruiser has four armor, a marine rifle basic does six damage. Thus two damage passes through four armor. The marines rifle is cut down by two thirds. The hyrda is only cut by a slight half however. This is ignoring the fact that most units have specialized damage bonus' that are designed against light, armored, or air units making the game much more about hard counters then it first appears.

That is absurd to me, as those units shouldn't even be able to hit a battle cruiser. I know it is that way for balance, but I don't have to agree with it.

It's no less absurd then the maintain train that your troops are on in DoW2 or the fact that you are given additional troop requisition for succeeding (which goes against military philosophy given that the successful troops need the help less). The real time strategy genre is an abstraction of an abstract concept. It's a game not real life. Distance yourself from it a bit and you'll enjoy it more.

I cannot find anything about any cover systems.

High ground gives line of sight advantages that can make your army immune to enemy fire unless they can get a spotter with line of sight to your elevation level. There are also line of sight blocking terrain effects like smoke and tall grass in Starcraft 2.

Starcraft 2 makes for a good beer n' pretzels RTS, but I wouldn't consider it a good example of a modern RTS. It's certainly great for nostalgia value though, and even as a casual Starcraft fan I get a lot of enjoyment out of it. If you need to kill a day, SCII is a great way to do it.

There's only one thing that really kills the game for me though, and that's the map editor. It's in such terrible shape right now that I'd have to give it a 2. It gets a point for being there, and it gets a point for being huge. But it loses 8 for being completely and utterly bugged and unusable for a large number of people, going by google results on the issues. The biggest problem with it is the camera bug. Any zooming in/out or moving of the camera will result in ground disappearing and/or a black screen of death where your map was. If you want your map back, you have to close the editor and open it back up, then reload your map. When this huge bug gets fixed I'll rate the editor higher, as it was my favorite part of the previous Starcraft.

With the semi-dated gameplay and short story, the map editor is the make or break for me in this game. Hopefully it'll be working soon, as that's what's going to keep me coming back to this game.

@Shuma

You're probably right. I would probably think the combat was decent enough (I did used to play it a lot back in the day, SC1 BW anyway), and counters are always fun. It might just be the macro. Resource gathering and base building are just not enjoyable to me, I much prefer the CoH/DoW2 model of getting resources/making units.

Did not know that about height level LOS, and I hadn't actually seen the smoke/tall grass cover stuff, that is interesting.

But I still think the damage systems are pretty meh, even if they are fine for game balance. I look at it and I think, well if this was the case in TT, my marine squad could hurt a titan with their bolters. Its silly, but I could stand it in SC2.

I always had more fun on those maps where you started with a ton of resources, so I didn't have to think about the macro/econ as much, but I still always had to build a ton of buildings :( If someone likes macro/econ, then I'm sure SC2 is a great game for them! I'm just saying I don't personally enjoy it, but thanks for pointing out the armor system/cover, as I wasn't even really aware they existed in the first one(SC/BW).

metallifan wrote:Starcraft 2 makes for a good beer n' pretzels RTS, but I wouldn't consider it a good example of a modern RTS. It's certainly great for nostalgia value though, and even as a casual Starcraft fan I get a lot of enjoyment out of it. If you need to kill a day, SCII is a great way to do it.

There's only one thing that really kills the game for me though, and that's the map editor. It's in such terrible shape right now that I'd have to give it a 2. It gets a point for being there, and it gets a point for being huge. But it loses 8 for being completely and utterly bugged and unusable for a large number of people, going by google results on the issues. The biggest problem with it is the camera bug. Any zooming in/out or moving of the camera will result in ground disappearing and/or a black screen of death where your map was. If you want your map back, you have to close the editor and open it back up, then reload your map. When this huge bug gets fixed I'll rate the editor higher, as it was my favorite part of the previous Starcraft.

With the semi-dated gameplay and short story, the map editor is the make or break for me in this game. Hopefully it'll be working soon, as that's what's going to keep me coming back to this game.

That sounds like a graphics driver issue to me.

That's what I thought at first too, Shuma. Thing is, I have a top-notch card & driver, and games with vastly greater graphic reqs than SCII (CoH WiC) and they play fine, as do their editors, on near-max settings. I can run SCII on max settings no problems. Plus, again, going by google, a tonne of people seem to be having this exact issue. So I'm thinking it's more likely a bug. Clicking the "Snap to camera" button fixes it it seems, but again, you best not try zooming in and/or out.

metallifan wrote:That's what I thought at first too, Shuma. Thing is, I have a top-notch card & driver, and games with vastly greater graphic reqs than SCII (CoH WiC) and they play fine, as do their editors, on near-max settings. I can run SCII on max settings no problems. Plus, again, going by google, a tonne of people seem to be having this exact issue. So I'm thinking it's more likely a bug. Clicking the "Snap to camera" button fixes it it seems, but again, you best not try zooming in and/or out.

Performance does not equal freedom from driver issues. The two aren't really connected though driver issues can certainly impact performance. If the editor was functionally broken I'm pretty sure we would be hearing about it (or at least I would, I follow this stuff like its my job) from plenty of sources. Could well be that they don't have full compatibility across all card models. It'll probably get fixed in a patch, I would suggest you google around to see if it's prevalent with your model.

Like I said I did do -some- googling. Though no one really mentions their specs. Just their issues. This one seems to be a rampant problem for a lot of people if various gaming forums are to be believed. I'm running the Nvidia 9800GTX Overclocked Card & Driver. I don't see how it wouldn't be included - that card is about a year or two old. Still prime, but old enough that it should be supported with the editor.

metallifan wrote:Like I said I did do -some- googling. Though no one really mentions their specs. Just their issues. This one seems to be a rampant problem for a lot of people if various gaming forums are to be believed. I'm running the Nvidia 9800GTX Overclocked Card & Driver. I don't see how it wouldn't be included - that card is about a year or two old. Still prime, but old enough that it should be supported with the editor.

It's also what I'm running. I'll give it a look.

Thanks mon'. I buggered around with my overclock settings, as setting those too high can (as I found out once long ago) screw you over and cause all kinds of issues. I thought maybe I had it clocked too high for what the settings required, but that didn't do anything for me. Being that I'm not IT-capable I don't wanna play with it more than that

ShumaGorath wrote:Yes. They do.

A game can sell well, get critically praised, and still suck. That will boil down to opinion for most games I could list but I can think of many can hold true to that statement. <Insert another of my "Fable is horrible" rants>

It's funny that would would bring up soulstorm which in fact wasn't a financial success nor was it a particularly well made game.

And that is relevant how? I was merely pointing out a rather large increase in the number of people playing DoW1 and it's expansions a month or so after the release of DoW2, and that there was a lot of chatter from people hating the new game and returning to the old.

Dow2 online is about as hopping as you would expect an RTS to be and the expansion helped add quite a bit with the additions to the last stand mode.

I suspected as much. I figure after a lot of DoW1 players left new players came in and picked it up.

I would disagree. I'm not a vet, but I know several, and I've seen many impressive battles from all the armies. Stuff more impressive than DoW2 where almost every battle played out the same way when we were playing. I viewed DoW2 as an extremely dumbed down RTS game. It's about as simple as an RTS can be without going back to the days of pong. It's far easier to succeed in DoW2 than in DoW1. While I'm sure there's a lot of things in DoW2 that take more skill than most can manage, it doesn't make the game deep. The game is horribly shallow. I get what you're saying about counters and the usefulness of squad upgrades, but a dumbed down game is still dumbed down. This is the very reason I said it was a step forward five steps back. We appear to be at an impasse on opinions of what constitutes a good RTS game XD.

Last Stand did interest me, but when it came out I was on my Universities 58kb (yeah) connection. Didn't bother reinstalling, and when I got home practically all my time went into Mechwarrior (I found the long lost Disc 2 of 2 in my old CD drive ), other games, and work. Probably would reinstall to play Last Stand but now that SCII is here and is a game I don't have immense distaste for I probably won't get to it.

Starcraft two is cool.

I enjoy it. Except for Void Ray spam. Void ray spam makes me cry

Maybe you guys can help me with this...the cinemas in the game aren't playing smoothly for me. Would turning down my settings help? I haven't had any problems in normal game play, and this solution seems counter-intuitive since I thought the movies were pre-redered.

Make sure you have the latest drivers for your graphics card if you haven't already (Step one in troubleshooting graphics always). I had some choppiness on the maps, but I updated and the problem disappeared for whatever reason. Sometimes there's just a file problem and updating gets rid of it. Other times you just need the update.

Rather than turning down all your graphic settings there are a few things you can try. Turn off anti-aliasing if it's on. That probably won't help if the scenes are pre-rendered (no idea if they are, though it might explain why Blizzard cutscenes always look so good XD) Normally I would list an order for graphic details to turn down or off in a game to solve such issues but I have no idea if turning off shadows (for example) would in anyway help with cutscenes XD.

A game can sell well, get critically praised, and still suck. That will boil down to opinion for most games I could list but I can think of many can hold true to that statement. <Insert another of my "Fable is horrible" rants>

As soon as the demographic for quality in games becomes "How much lord of hats liked it" that will be correct. Until then we can only measure quality quantitatively. That is done using critical reviews and sales numbers. I love starcraft 2, I also loved dawn of war two. Our opinions cancel eachother out if singular opinions are paramount.

And that is relevant how? I was merely pointing out a rather large increase in the number of people playing DoW1 and it's expansions a month or so after the release of DoW2, and that there was a lot of chatter from people hating the new game and returning to the old.

Yes, you get that with every sequel to every game. The game was quite different, I will give you that. It was not the same game as dawn of war one. For people that like easy and pretty games dawn of war one is presumably much better. Thats not really a measurable quantity though and dawn of war two has a fairly significant number of people playing it online.

I would disagree. I'm not a vet, but I know several, and I've seen many impressive battles from all the armies. Stuff more impressive than DoW2 where almost every battle played out the same way when we were playing. I viewed DoW2 as an extremely dumbed down RTS game. It's about as simple as an RTS can be without going back to the days of pong.

I'm going to go with what critical reviews and E-sports professionals state concerning the level of complication of Dawn of war two as compared to the least complicated critically successful RTS made in the last 10 years (dow1).

While I'm sure there's a lot of things in DoW2 that take more skill than most can manage, it doesn't make the game deep. The game is horribly shallow. I get what you're saying about counters and the usefulness of squad upgrades, but a dumbed down game is still dumbed down. This is the very reason I said it was a step forward five steps back. We appear to be at an impasse on opinions of what constitutes a good RTS game XD.

When you are going to call something dumbed down actually explaining how would be a good place to start. Otherwise you're just spinning your wheels and lightly trolling.

We appear to be at an impasse on opinions of what constitutes a good RTS game XD.

We will be when you state what you believe makes one better then the other in more then baseless semantic form.

I enjoy it. Except for Void Ray spam. Void ray spam makes me cry

It's not hard to counter, just scout well so you know it's coming and tool your army accordingly.

How is a game critics opinion anymore valid than mine? I probably play as many video games as they do. I guess it doesn't count unless you're being published or paid. Otherwise an opinion is just worthless talk. The only difference between a critical opinion and mine is that I don't get paid for it.

Maybe I used the wrong word. High sales and good reviews does not equal a good game is probably what I should have said.

ShumaGorath wrote:We will be when you state what you believe makes one better then the other in more then baseless semantic form.

I went over it vaguely in an earlier post. Resource management can't get any simpler tan DoW2. You only have a single structure to deal with. Economy is as small a concern as possible in an RTS. Sure they added counters but the winner is still whoever can throw the most bullets at you. The cover system was nice and all but when I was playing it never amounted to anything. The opposing player would just disappear behind fog, run around the rather large open maps and come up on your side and toss you. It goes on like that for a little bit until someone has enough simple economy to spam out mech and instant win. I can see why E-Sports never picked up DoW1, it isn't the most complex RTS out there, but I don't see how DoW2 is any different. Every game plays out and ends the same way.

It's not hard to counter, just scout well so you know it's coming and tool your army accordingly.

Started scouting after a friend suggested it. EDIT: Rephrase, I was scouting but I was using the command center scan for it, and given how slow I am right now I ended up scanning too late to do anything about it. Also started spamming more marines early on to deal with rushing in general and to counter the rays until I can get vikings. I'm still to slow though to get going. Need more practice and I'm trying to memorize the hotkeys still. Likely I'm an achievement whore, so there's plenty of room to get some of this down to basics while stomping the poor computer into nothing.

LordofHats wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:We will be when you state what you believe makes one better then the other in more then baseless semantic form.

I went over it vaguely in an earlier post. Resource management can't get any simpler tan DoW2. You only have a single structure to deal with. Economy is as small a concern as possible in an RTS. Sure they added counters but the winner is still whoever can throw the most bullets at you. The cover system was nice and all but when I was playing it never amounted to anything. The opposing player would just disappear behind fog, run around the rather large open maps and come up on your side and toss you. It goes on like that for a little bit until someone has enough simple economy to spam out mech and instant win. I can see why E-Sports never picked up DoW1, it isn't the most complex RTS out there, but I don't see how DoW2 is any different. Every game plays out and ends the same way.

This just makes it sound like you were not very well acquainted with the game when you played it, and your grasp of strategy in the game is quite unsound. Cover is most definitely a big concern, and mech(I use the term loosely, since I don't exactly know what you mean... a dreadnought? A razorback? Predator?) is most assuredly not an instant win as AV counters are in abundance.

You don't see how DoW2 is any different than DoW1 because you lack sufficient experience playing it to form an opinion about it. Each game plays out the same way if you mean you reduce your enemy to zero victory points, or you reach the winning amount of victory points in a FFA; while playing, you generally have to be pretty flexible to adapt to your opponent.

How is a game critics opinion anymore valid than mine?

It's not, however it's part of an industry wherein opinions can be rated, aggregated, and parsed through. Your opinion is anonymous to all but your close acquaintances. Since we don't have a way to determine popular opinion easily and with safeguards to ensure against tampering critical evaluation remains important. They also treat it as a job and are much more familiar with the industry at large and general game trends.

I went over it vaguely in an earlier post. Resource management can't get any simpler tan DoW2. You only have a single structure to deal with.

Which is the same as dawn of war one. There was requisition and power and you needed to have a single building to ever get it (otherwise you had lost). The resource management is identical.

Economy is as small a concern as possible in an RTS. Sure they added counters but the winner is still whoever can throw the most bullets at you. The cover system was nice and all but when I was playing it never amounted to anything.

Play me. Online. Right now.

I will crush you into the dust so easily it'll be like I was beating up a sleeping child. If you can state that the single most important part of the online game is meaningless then I doubt that you ever actually played this game online at all. Seriously. No. Being in hard cover reduces 90% of damage taken, that is NOT nothing and it has significant impact on every single game.

The opposing player would just disappear behind fog, run around the rather large open maps and come up on your side and toss you.

Dawn of war two possessed some of the most cluttered maps seen in any RTS in the genres history. Increasingly I'm thinking you didn't play this game. Also if they fled then you're winning, it's a game about taking territory where all resources come from territory taken.

It goes on like that for a little bit until someone has enough simple economy to spam out mech and instant win. I can see why E-Sports never picked up DoW1, it isn't the most complex RTS out there, but I don't see how DoW2 is any different. Every game plays out and ends the same way.

Don't take this the wrong way, but I think you were the target demographic of dawn of war one, not the second. You don't sound like you're very good at dawn of war two. Tier two teching isn't an instant win and meching up isn't either.

Started scouting after a friend suggested it. EDIT: Rephrase, I was scouting but I was using the command center scan for it, and given how slow I am right now I ended up scanning too late to do anything about it. Also started spamming more marines early on to deal with rushing in general and to counter the rays until I can get vikings. I'm still to slow though to get going. Need more practice and I'm trying to memorize the hotkeys still.

It'll come in time. I'm still not the best at actively scouting, I usually rely on my speed to counter theirs and most one on one maps make scouting he opposing base very early on difficult.

ShumaGorath wrote:Which is the same as dawn of war one. There was requisition and power and you needed to have a single building to ever get it (otherwise you had lost). The resource management is identical.

The need to build on the strategic points was a big difference. It is simple but it's not mind numbingly simple. You still needed to choose when to upgrade or if upgrading is even worth it in the larger scale of your economy. In DoW2 you just capture and leave it alone.

I will crush you into the dust so easily it'll be like I was beating up a sleeping child. If you can state that the single most important part of the online game is meaningless then I doubt that you ever actually played this game online at all. Seriously. No. Being in hard cover reduces 90% of damage taken, that is NOT nothing and it has significant impact on every single game.

Did you play the game when it came out? There were like three maps per game mode, and flanking an opponent was so simple you didn't even need to think about it.

Dawn of war two possessed some of the most cluttered maps seen in any RTS in the genres history. Increasingly I'm thinking you didn't play this game. Also if they fled then you're winning, it's a game about taking territory where all resources come from territory taken.

Maps were cluttered but the terrain itself made movement simple. All you had to do was run back where the defenders couldn't see you, go around a building and behind the guys platform or devastators. The maps had little on them to prevent free movement (ridges, choke points). What ridge lines they did have were very large and getting onto them wasn't difficult with more than enough room to move about and flank once you were there. There were rocks and trees and the like everywhere but they hardly made moving around difficult. I can only think of two maps that actually had choke points off the top of my head, and they were 3v3 maps. I think one of the 1v1's had a lot of ridges and rough terrain but for the life of me I can't remember ever playing it outside of comp stomps. In 1v1 I always seemed to play the same jungle map for whatever reason.

Don't take this the wrong way, but I think you were the target demographic of dawn of war one, not the second. You don't sound like you're very good at dawn of war two. Tier two teching isn't an instant win and meching up isn't either.

I'm probably not the best at DoW2, or any RTS, but I did significantly better at it than any other RTS I've ever played. Mech (by that I mean walkers and tanks) was in fact an easy win in almost all my games, for myself or the other team. If you pushed for it early you could get dreads and wraithlords out before the other side had obtained any anti-armor weapons or even teched up. Then you end up wiping out their two or three squads with no AA, and as long as the leader didn't have a power weapon, which if they didn't have AA he/she usually didn't. Even if they did have AA, it usually amounted to just one missile launcher or a platform. Take it out and they had nothing, and you could be back at your base churning out more dreadnoughts. Units were so expensive that if you wiped someone they pretty much lost. Early mech made wiping out a guys army easy.

I certainly did like DoW1. I played Age of Empires and Empire Earth and hated both though that was probably because I was twelve or thirteen (I think... the years fly). Total War was the first RTS I enjoyed, and then DoW got me going on to other RTS'. I get the appeal of DoW2, but I just thought that game was too simple. I stopped playing DoW2 month after release so it wouldn't surprise me that things have changed, but that's how it always went when I played, and I played about eighty some odd games. Did you have the game when it released? It sounds like we had two very different experiences, or maybe I just didn't stick around long enough for it to get better.

It'll come in time. I'm still not the best at actively scouting, I usually rely on my speed to counter theirs and most one on one maps make scouting he opposing base very early on difficult.

The prime problem I've always had in RTS' is multitasking. I can handle the management of three or four different buildings and unit groups easy enough but once you get down the line and things get more spaced out I have trouble keeping everything straight. My hands are very fickle little critters. They don't always hit the buttons I tell them too Practice practice. SCII is first game I've played in a long time I've actually been willing to work at being good in.

The need to build on the strategic points was a big difference. It is simple but it's not mind numbingly simple. You still needed to choose when to upgrade or if upgrading is even worth it in the larger scale of your economy. In DoW2 you just capture and leave it alone.

You have to build on strategic points in dawn of war two. Power was moved onto the map and generators are required to amp up their production. If the moving of a build asset and the addition of two more types of terrain capture points makes a game more simple I don't really understand why.

Did you play the game when it came out?

Yes, a significant amount. Likely far more then you. I also play it now after it has received several changes.

There were like three maps per game mode, and flanking an opponent was so simple you didn't even need to think about it.

Four IIRC, which has parity with things like TF2 and the original dawn of war at launch. Dow1 had 2 1v1 2 2v2 2 3v3 and 2 4v4. Thats eight maps. Equal number.

Maps were cluttered but the terrain itself made movement simple. All you had to do was run back where the defenders couldn't see you, go around a building and behind the guys platform or devastators.

So because it wasn't a canyon shooter it's more simple? I think you're using simple and difficult interchangeably to mean "I don't like it".

The maps had little on them to prevent free movement (ridges, choke points). What ridge lines they did have were very large and getting onto them wasn't difficult with more than enough room to move about and flank once you were there.

So because the maps lacked training wheels you didn't like them and all of a sudden they are simplistic and empty. Curious.

I can only think of two maps that actually had choke points off the top of my head, and they were 3v3 maps. I think one of the 1v1's had a lot of ridges and rough terrain but for the life of me I can't remember ever playing it outside of comp stomps. In 1v1 I always seemed to play the same jungle map for whatever reason.

So your opinion of maps is based on the number of ridges and choke points. Got it.

I'm probably not the best at DoW2, or any RTS, but I did significantly better at it than any other RTS I've ever played.

Forgive me for doubting that if an opponents actions such as "moving around a building" fumbled you. Your review of tactical gameplay and the number of games you have said you've played do not really line up.

Mech (by that I mean walkers and tanks) was in fact an easy win in almost all my games, for myself or the other team. If you pushed for it early you could get dreads and wraithlords out before the other side had obtained any anti-armor weapons or even teched up.

I had plenty of games that went to tier two and then three but still lasted quite a long time. If you're racing to tier two then you are losing control points and thus requisition making your opponent richer and allowing him to leverage more units against you. You may earn a few kills with your 30 second to 1 minute advantage but he is gaining enough resources to minimize his losses while your vehicle forces are unable to recapture locations. Also each faction had an anti vehicle weapon in tier one and an anti vehicle weapon for their commander. You played noobs.

I get the appeal of DoW2, but I just thought that game was too simple.

Every single person in the history of reviewing the game has said the exact opposite, as have numerous e-sport professionals. You have not exactly supported your statement well or logically and you've repeatedly made incorrect or confusing statements about the game which imply you either haven't played it in a long time or didn't play much when you did. It's just like, your opinion, man.

I stopped playing DoW2 month after release so it wouldn't surprise me that things have changed, but that's how it always went when I played, and I played about eighty some odd games. Did you have the game when it released? It sounds like we had two very different experiences, or maybe I just didn't stick around long enough for it to get better.

We had similar experiences, you just seem to have taken a different opinion away from them. The teching to tier two was a bit early and infantry warfare didn't last as long as it should have (something they fixed a few months after release actually) but in general it was still a highly complicated and enjoyable game with a significan't level of tactical play (something the first game couldn't hope to pretend to have). Dreadnauts weren't win buttons and if you're opponent wasn't teching at roughly the same speed you were then you were playing some awfully terrible people.

If you didn't like the tank fights try it again now, the games more about soft counters and map control then it was.

ShumaGorath wrote:You have to build on strategic points in dawn of war two. Power was moved onto the map and generators are required to amp up their production. If the moving of a build asset and the addition of two more types of terrain capture points makes a game more simple I don't really understand why.

Before power and requisition had to be managed. You had to manage expansion, construction, and unit production. Only one is really present in DoW2. Construction is almost non-existant.

Four IIRC, which has parity with things like TF2 and the original dawn of war at launch. Dow1 had 2 1v1 2 2v2 2 3v3 and 2 4v4. Thats eight maps. Equal number.

2v2 and 4v4 were not available at release. Unless my memory has gone crazy on me only 1v1 and 3v3 were available. I knew they added 2v2 but I was unaware that 4v4 had been added.

So because it wasn't a canyon shooter it's more simple? I think you're using simple and difficult interchangeably to mean "I don't like it".

The maps were so bland that you never needed to consider them to win. Flank flank flank. It was all the same. Granted this might be jaded because I honestly played the same 1v1 map for more than half the games I did by some fluke in probability.

So your opinion of maps is based on the number of ridges and choke points. Got it.

My opinion on maps is based on how the terrain can effect the game. When the only terrain in a map is cover, it doesn't really take much to flank the other player by disappearing back into fog where he can't see you.

Forgive me for doubting that if an opponents actions such as "moving around a building" fumbled you. Your review of tactical gameplay and the number of games you have said you've played do not really line up.

Thanks for calling me a liar. It's much appreciated. Heaven forbid I disagree with you.

I had plenty of games that went to tier two and then three but still lasted quite a long time. If you're racing to tier two then you are losing control points and thus requisition making your opponent richer and allowing him to leverage more units against you. You may earn a few kills with your 30 second to 1 minute advantage but he is gaining enough resources to minimize his losses while your vehicle forces are unable to recapture locations. Also each faction had an anti vehicle weapon in tier one and an anti vehicle weapon for their commander. You played noobs.

At release the AA appeared in T2. Meltabombs weren't available until you'd teched up, and niether were missile launchers. The only antiarmor weapons available to T1 units. I forget what the multipliers were but the weapons that commanders carried that worked against vehicles weren't T1 at release either. Some of the commanders didn't even have one (Techmarine) Seize the map and kill the other players infantry enough and he's too busy replacing them to tech up. Flamers made it easy. So did mass guardians.

Every single person in the history of reviewing the game has said the exact opposite, as have numerous e-sport professionals. You have not exactly supported your statement well or logically and you've repeatedly made incorrect or confusing statements about the game which imply you either haven't played it in a long time or didn't play much when you did. It's just like, your opinion, man.

I can see how the phrase "I think" can confuse you as to how everything I said is an opinion. I know its an opinion. So are you're mass numbers. Volume doesn't make them right. If logic matters as you say lose the bandwagon fallacy.

We had similar experiences, you just seem to have taken a different opinion away from them. The teching to tier two was a bit early and infantry warfare didn't last as long as it should have (something they fixed a few months after release actually) but in general it was still a highly complicated and enjoyable game with a significan't level of tactical play (something the first game couldn't hope to pretend to have). Dreadnauts weren't win buttons and if you're opponent wasn't teching at roughly the same speed you were then you were playing some awfully terrible people.

If you didn't like the tank fights try it again now, the games more about soft counters and map control then it was

Not surprised they changed it. Wouldn't be surprised if the people I ended up playing were noobs either. As with that instance of playing the same map over and over a lot of weird things happened to me with that game. Most of the other things were Windows Live and single player related.

god you guys are annoying. just play the game. if you are going to break each others posts down, then do it on PM....I know I am guilty of it, too...but jeez...never again...nobody wants to read that gak.

and Shuma, you are the master of it....




*waits for Shuma's smartass remark*


Automatically Appended Next Post:
on another note...I love SC.....I remember the day I bought the first one....Blizzard did not let me down....

....where the feth is my Diablo 3?, you donkey-caves....

I bought SC2 , now im hoping there is some way to bring all the units ( from campaign ) into normal mode.

IG_urban wrote:god you guys are annoying.

NOT!

IG_urban wrote: just play the game. if you are going to break each others posts down, then do it on PM....I know I am guilty of it, too...but jeez...never again...nobody wants to read that gak.

But... its so fun!

IG_urban wrote:and Shuma, you are the master of it....



*waits for Shuma's smartass remark*

I raise you...

IG_urban wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
on another note...I love SC.....I remember the day I bought the first one....Blizzard did not let me down....

....where the feth is my Diablo 3?, you donkey-caves....

COMING SOON(tm), WE PROMISE

legoburner wrote:
Incredible game though, combines nostalgia of the old with an incredible soundtrack which I will certainly hear at the next videogames live concert, and beautiful graphics with a very engaging story. Not been this hooked on a game in a looooong time. I'm about halfway through now, so am starting to get a lot of the fun toys in the game as well

FYI, the soundtrack is availble on iTunes..it seems to be really complete! Although, the songs they play from the jukebox aren't included.

im addicted. i have played every day since i have had the game...except yesterday! yesterday was the first time since release that i have not been able to play SCII. i gotta say, Blizzard did a MARVELOUS job setting the game. and achievements make the game more fun! imm trying to get to 1000 points on my achievements lol, im close.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
sorry to tell you shuma, but SCII tops DOW any day ^^ until DOW becomes more like the books and stories, and they stop ripping armies off, then maybe it will b good!

Kyric wrote:
sorry to tell you shuma, but SCII tops DOW any day ^^ until DOW becomes more like the books and stories, and they stop ripping armies off, then maybe it will b good!

Although if we're really talking about DoW1, then yea you're right

sorry to tell you shuma, but SCII tops DOW any day ^^ until DOW becomes more like the books and stories, and they stop ripping armies off, then maybe it will b good!

SCII tops dawn of war 1 any day, it's not particularly comparable to the second which is a very different game. Also the GW steals armies in reference to blizzard not stealing armies is an old troll and sir you've been caught in it!

not sure what you mean by that shuma, but do you have any idea how similar DOW and SCII are? i laughed when the terran started using "Drop Pods" and the protoss started using "Warp gates" i realized how much like the 40k armies they are being. FUNNY STUFF MAN!

anywho, i was referring to both dow games sucking. ty. ^^

I <3 daedalus-templarius xD

Kyric wrote: until DOW becomes more like the books and stories, and they stop ripping armies off, then maybe it will b good!

Then you have an awful taste in literature. The DOW books were Fething slowed. Anyone that considers a C.S. Goto novel to be quality stuff deserves to catch a bullet. And I don't see how DoW is "ripping armies off". Unless of course, you mean the part where 40K ripped off a product that it preceeded by 11 years. Man, those Space Marines sure copied the Terran Marines that came out 11 years later than the GW product.

Blizzard should sue

Been having a blast with SC2. Also recently came across some interesting potential for use map settings maps but some of these vids are old, however can't wait to try out some of these triggers once I put some time into the map editor:











Stuff from a year ago:




The map editor is almost like a game engine in itself. One of the best things about PC gaming is the unlimited potential if the user community's harnessed by providing tools and support such as a great map editor.

Kyric wrote:not sure what you mean by that shuma, but do you have any idea how similar DOW and SCII are? i laughed when the terran started using "Drop Pods" and the protoss started using "Warp gates" i realized how much like the 40k armies they are being. FUNNY STUFF MAN!

anywho, i was referring to both dow games sucking. ty. ^^

I <3 daedalus-templarius xD

Drop pods and warp gates? You mean the things that games workshop stole from starship troopers and basically every saturday morning cartoon in the 70's and 80's? Yes, clearly they are cribbing games workshop because of the drop pods and the stargates. I mean, it's not like every single other science fiction property has those too.


As to the games sucking...

Back on the topic of SCII, tried three games last night and I won them all XD. It's a personal best. For once in my life of RTS gaming I have a flawless record . Practice does pay off. Granted one of the guys left the game at the very start before anything happened but it still counts as three.

as to the DoW vs SC rip off question: Welcome to the wonderful world of imagination, where your idea can always be boiled down to someone elses idea. I mean, what's up with health bars? Stop copying Dungeons and Dragons!