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.

Why are you guys fighting about who is better DoW 1 or DoW 2?
Both games are awesome in their own ways.

Dawn of War 1 is good game and it seems to me that I am one of the rare ones that actually like Soulstorm ( sure, it is buggy sometimes and it's campaign was worst one in the series. But I love it because of Sisters [ they are awesome army to play ] and the fact that you have 9 army's to choose to fight, and that is majority in 40k universe [ no Nids and Inquisition ] ). I like the graphic, it looks nice even in 2012. Gameplay was good most of the time and I like the modding support that this game offers. I have only few things to add to this like some units being OTT powerful [ FW squad, Eldar Banshee ] and the fact that melee units are very weak ( like GK squad being gunned down by 2 Guardsmen squads ).

Dawn of War II have better graphic, gameplay, RPG elements and campaign ( you must love all those cutscenes and how they did certain characters ). The only thing I don't like in DoW II is size of your army. I understand for Space Marines who are elite and small but for Tyranids, Guard and Orks? To yield that number of troops with one of those factions is insulting.

The one awesome thing both games have in common is music. Both DoW 1 and DoW 2 have incredible music, with Imperial Guard being my favorite in both games

Brother Coa wrote:Why are you guys fighting about who is better DoW 1 or DoW 2?

I imagine it something along the lines of not understanding why people like what they don't like, and vice versa.

More like I'm just annoyed by people bashing anything that provides new ideas to an otherwise stagnant genre of games...

Dawn of War 2 massively polarized the gaming community, that's why people fight about it. Dawn of War 2 was such a hell of a gear change that it wound up creating three big "factions" of gamers - those who absolutely despise what DoW2 did to the Dawn of War name, those who absolutely applaud DoW2 for changing it up and making the game closer to the tabletop (requiring actual tactics to win games), and those who think that both games are good in their own right.

Honestly, I like 'em both. I definitely prefer the original to DoW2, but I bought all three DoW2 games and played 'em through to the end. My main problem is that DoW2 requires actual tactics and a lot of micromanagement, neither of which I'm actually good at. I prefer DoW1 because I can win games (against computer opponents, I'll be honest here) by amassing a huge army and running it head-on into the enemy base. It's more fun for me to not have to think about where I'm going to position each unit, how they're going to be facing, where I'm going to stick a turret - just build the army, put listening posts on points to defend themselves, and have fun running a hundred guys at the enemy forces.

Just my two cents.

Yes but WiC had no bases to speak of, only deployment zones, much like mark of chaos. DoW ll has bases and you can lose your base, and taking the correct hero let's you further build buildings.

But I will agree it plays much like WiC and I much enjoyed it...


So I'm excited to see what happens to DoW3 hopefully it turns out like Savage!