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.

Niexist wrote:
I personally loved dawn of war 2, I've played through 3 campaigns so far, and really it is what got me into TT. The characters are awesome (If I ever make an ork army, it will be freebootaz, because kap'n bludflagg just rocked the whole game)

I also played the original dawn of war prior to playing part 2, and honestly the game is a crock. It was released in 2004, and is pretty much a clone of C&C:RA, and Warcraft 1/2/starcraft. Just because you rename/reskin the farms doesn't make them not a farm. There was even an armory, the same exact kind of turrets and everything. I liked the Gabriel Angelos storyline, but I never played much past the original game, I got to maybe the second mission in winter assault. I mean if you have to copy every gameplay aspect of a game made ten years before yours, you have stale gameplay in my opinion.

Anyway, I'm sure I'll get flamed for calling out DoW for what it is, but it is my opinion

C&C is not like DoW at all.

DoW's big innovation was actually starting the trend towards squad based combat with a lesser emphasis on resource gathering and building sprawling fortresses for bases.

C&C is perhaps the most turtle happy big sprawling base series with a huge emphasis on resource gathering you can get without going right to Total Annihilation-esque RTS games.

You don't know "impregnable" until you try to assault a well dug in Nod base in Tib Wars.

 Kain wrote:

Niexist wrote:
I personally loved dawn of war 2, I've played through 3 campaigns so far, and really it is what got me into TT. The characters are awesome (If I ever make an ork army, it will be freebootaz, because kap'n bludflagg just rocked the whole game)

I also played the original dawn of war prior to playing part 2, and honestly the game is a crock. It was released in 2004, and is pretty much a clone of C&C:RA, and Warcraft 1/2/starcraft. Just because you rename/reskin the farms doesn't make them not a farm. There was even an armory, the same exact kind of turrets and everything. I liked the Gabriel Angelos storyline, but I never played much past the original game, I got to maybe the second mission in winter assault. I mean if you have to copy every gameplay aspect of a game made ten years before yours, you have stale gameplay in my opinion.

Anyway, I'm sure I'll get flamed for calling out DoW for what it is, but it is my opinion

C&C is not like DoW at all.

DoW's big innovation was actually starting the trend towards squad based combat with a lesser emphasis on resource gathering and building sprawling fortresses for bases.

C&C is perhaps the most turtle happy big sprawling base series with a huge emphasis on resource gathering you can get without going right to Total Annihilation-esque RTS games.

You don't know "impregnable" until you try to assault a well dug in Nod base in Tib Wars.

I gotta say, Supreme Commander takes this.
After 7 hours of gameplay, when your (and your opponents) shield arrays are so dense tactical nukes can't penetrate, and the space between the two bases is a wasteland of twisted metal, streams of nukes hitting shields and being shot down by defence stations, and tech.3 tanks moving out on both sides to be instantly slagged by triple walls of artillery....
Aircraft brought down by swarms of missiles that block out the sun!
And if any ship is unlucky enough to make it inside the shield wall, the ocean lights up with torpedo fire.
And in the near impossible event that anything makes it past the artillery, laser batteries await.

You don't know hell, till you turtle in SupCom.
(Seriously - waves of 80 nukes, still not enough.)

 Kain wrote:

Niexist wrote:
I personally loved dawn of war 2, I've played through 3 campaigns so far, and really it is what got me into TT. The characters are awesome (If I ever make an ork army, it will be freebootaz, because kap'n bludflagg just rocked the whole game)

I also played the original dawn of war prior to playing part 2, and honestly the game is a crock. It was released in 2004, and is pretty much a clone of C&C:RA, and Warcraft 1/2/starcraft. Just because you rename/reskin the farms doesn't make them not a farm. There was even an armory, the same exact kind of turrets and everything. I liked the Gabriel Angelos storyline, but I never played much past the original game, I got to maybe the second mission in winter assault. I mean if you have to copy every gameplay aspect of a game made ten years before yours, you have stale gameplay in my opinion.

Anyway, I'm sure I'll get flamed for calling out DoW for what it is, but it is my opinion

C&C is not like DoW at all.

DoW's big innovation was actually starting the trend towards squad based combat with a lesser emphasis on resource gathering and building sprawling fortresses for bases.

C&C is perhaps the most turtle happy big sprawling base series with a huge emphasis on resource gathering you can get without going right to Total Annihilation-esque RTS games.

You don't know "impregnable" until you try to assault a well dug in Nod base in Tib Wars.

Okay fine, warcraft was a ripoff of C&C, and DoW was a copy of Warcraft. All of the buildings are equivalent, each force has resource gatherer's, population maxes that must use a farm equivalent to be increased. It even has fog of war. That's like saying SW:TOR is nothing like WoW because it is in space.

That's one thing that mystifies me about newer RTS games, the seeming irrational hatred for turtling.

There's definitely potential, I expect them to go back to the DOW1 route of large cinematic battles over the squad-based combat in DOW2.

Hopefully more of the "attrition" battles, fighting wave after wave of AI units and gradually inching your way towards the objective was what made Dark Crusade so awesome on the HQ battles. I actually lost these fairly often because the AI swarms you with a horde of units as soon as you arrive, and you need to make sure you've come prepared. DOW3 should seek to make more moments like this, and less bland generic province fights.

 Kain wrote:
That's one thing that mystifies me about newer RTS games, the seeming irrational hatred for turtling.

How is it irrational? Do you want to waste an hour of your life trying to win a game you had effectively won long before but have to waste huge amounts of time smashing forces into your opponent again, and again, and again? I just find it funny when people complain about turtling and zerg rushing in the same sentence.

I'm a famous turtler. It all started when I was a kid playing Warcraft 2. I had this irrational idea that in order to complete the mission I had to build exactly 1 of every building available to me on that mission, then research every upgrade, then build one of every unit, then actually try to win (and fail miserably because one of every maxed out unit is a horrible army).

That absurdity has gone, but I still like to have my units maxed out on upgrades before I go on offense.

Also the more I hear about this Supreme Commander game the more I want to play it. I assume the AI never goes to such absurd defensive lengths in the single player campaign, and having that kind of defense available to me while I take all the time in the world to upgrade sounds nice (although maybe not fun to watch). Just have to add, any game where the red and black spider leg robot faction is actually the good guys has to be fine by me.

xruslanx wrote:
There's definitely potential, I expect them to go back to the DOW1 route of large cinematic battles over the squad-based combat in DOW2.

To be fair, we saw an inkling of that in first DoW2 campaign's defense missions, that dreadnaught barrage with explosive shells was just beautiful.
All defense missions were very intense and enjoyable. Now imagine that level of visual fidelity put to Dark Crusade/Soulstorm's stronghold maps and other special global ability maps.
There is very little that needs to be done to make a fantastic DoW3 except to combine best elements from all of the series.

VensersRevenge wrote:

 Kain wrote:
That's one thing that mystifies me about newer RTS games, the seeming irrational hatred for turtling.

How is it irrational? Do you want to waste an hour of your life trying to win a game you had effectively won long before but have to waste huge amounts of time smashing forces into your opponent again, and again, and again? I just find it funny when people complain about turtling and zerg rushing in the same sentence.

Turtling and digging in is as valid a tactic as early game rushes. And some people happen to enjoy WW1 style warfare where massive armies beat each other senseless against virtually impregnable defence lines.

 dementedwombat wrote:
I'm a famous turtler. It all started when I was a kid playing Warcraft 2. I had this irrational idea that in order to complete the mission I had to build exactly 1 of every building available to me on that mission, then research every upgrade, then build one of every unit, then actually try to win (and fail miserably because one of every maxed out unit is a horrible army).

That absurdity has gone, but I still like to have my units maxed out on upgrades before I go on offense.

Also the more I hear about this Supreme Commander game the more I want to play it. I assume the AI never goes to such absurd defensive lengths in the single player campaign, and having that kind of defense available to me while I take all the time in the world to upgrade sounds nice (although maybe not fun to watch). Just have to add, any game where the red and black spider leg robot faction is actually the good guys has to be fine by me.

Oh no, it doesn't, but the A.I can be quite challenging.

Also, like many newer RTS games, you can also set the A.I player's personality as well as their difficulty level. Additionally, you can decide whether it is allowed to cheat or not.

Games Workshop went from $5million in royalties in 2012 to barely over $1million in 2013. That huge decrease was because of DoW and Space Marine effects wearing off.

You bet your bottom dollar they're going to get another one going!

Niexist wrote:

 Kain wrote:

Niexist wrote:
I personally loved dawn of war 2, I've played through 3 campaigns so far, and really it is what got me into TT. The characters are awesome (If I ever make an ork army, it will be freebootaz, because kap'n bludflagg just rocked the whole game)

I also played the original dawn of war prior to playing part 2, and honestly the game is a crock. It was released in 2004, and is pretty much a clone of C&C:RA, and Warcraft 1/2/starcraft. Just because you rename/reskin the farms doesn't make them not a farm. There was even an armory, the same exact kind of turrets and everything. I liked the Gabriel Angelos storyline, but I never played much past the original game, I got to maybe the second mission in winter assault. I mean if you have to copy every gameplay aspect of a game made ten years before yours, you have stale gameplay in my opinion.

Anyway, I'm sure I'll get flamed for calling out DoW for what it is, but it is my opinion

C&C is not like DoW at all.

DoW's big innovation was actually starting the trend towards squad based combat with a lesser emphasis on resource gathering and building sprawling fortresses for bases.

C&C is perhaps the most turtle happy big sprawling base series with a huge emphasis on resource gathering you can get without going right to Total Annihilation-esque RTS games.

You don't know "impregnable" until you try to assault a well dug in Nod base in Tib Wars.

Okay fine, warcraft was a ripoff of C&C, and DoW was a copy of Warcraft. All of the buildings are equivalent, each force has resource gatherer's, population maxes that must use a farm equivalent to be increased. It even has fog of war. That's like saying SW:TOR is nothing like WoW because it is in space.

Please tell me this is sarcasm, because LOL, calling every RTS proceeding C&C a 'ripoff' is like saying every truck after the model T is a 'ripoff'.

As for DoW 3? I'm hoping that they take the good things from both games (and their xpacs) and combine them. DoW2 felt like a mod for CoH, a game I despise, which initially annoyed me. But as the campaign went on, the xpacs came out, and multiplayer was tweaked, I found myself having a great deal of fun. DoW1 was a blast as well, the giant armies, the hilariously awesome melee combat, the campaign was pretty badass too. But, onward and upward yeah?

I'll put out a little disclaimer in that while I think Dawn of War 1 is a fairly uninteresting and strategy-less slugfest of a game, I absolutely loved it when it came out. It's very of its time, and its time was closing in on a decade ago. It's just aged very, very poorly. However, I don't really see how it's a clone of Starcraft or Command and Conquer. Starcraft is a very math-heavy game, very twitch-based, and built around limited resource territory. Dawn of War is heavy on randomization (accuracy and damage percentages for one), much slower paced, and while the resources decay over time, you can't strip mine out a base area of minerals. The units come in squads instead of individual models and also have separate melee and ranged attacks with different values, which is something I can't recall seeing in RTS games before that point. Dawn of War 2 built on all these points and made them better, but I'll still give credit where it's due.

 Kain wrote:
That's one thing that mystifies me about newer RTS games, the seeming irrational hatred for turtling.

Turtling is like camping in that it isn't usually fun for the other players who aren't doing it. It also makes for a game without any dynamics, which isn't really fun. Fortifying a forward critical location with units or air dropped in bunkers or something is cool, but just building your fort at home while the other guy runs around the map unopposed isn't interesting. It's just prolonging the inevitable and, as someone who's been on both sides of the fort, it can feel an awful lot like you're wasting my time as an attacker.

 Brother SRM wrote:
I'll put out a little disclaimer in that while I think Dawn of War 1 is a fairly uninteresting and strategy-less slugfest of a game, I absolutely loved it when it came out. It's very of its time, and its time was closing in on a decade ago. It's just aged very, very poorly. However, I don't really see how it's a clone of Starcraft or Command and Conquer. Starcraft is a very math-heavy game, very twitch-based, and built around limited resource territory. Dawn of War is heavy on randomization (accuracy and damage percentages for one), much slower paced, and while the resources decay over time, you can't strip mine out a base area of minerals. The units come in squads instead of individual models and also have separate melee and ranged attacks with different values, which is something I can't recall seeing in RTS games before that point. Dawn of War 2 built on all these points and made them better, but I'll still give credit where it's due.

 Kain wrote:
That's one thing that mystifies me about newer RTS games, the seeming irrational hatred for turtling.

Turtling is like camping in that it isn't usually fun for the other players who aren't doing it. It also makes for a game without any dynamics, which isn't really fun. Fortifying a forward critical location with units or air dropped in bunkers or something is cool, but just building your fort at home while the other guy runs around the map unopposed isn't interesting. It's just prolonging the inevitable and, as someone who's been on both sides of the fort, it can feel an awful lot like you're wasting my time as an attacker.

So basically, you ignore the fact that all the buildings in the base are reskinned copies from warcraft? I won't even respond to the guy above you, and his lame attempts at trollings.

Dawn of war 2 on the other hand was a concept of game that hadn't been done to death, in fact I can't really think of another game that I have played with a similar setup. That's what I look for in my video games, something ORIGINAL, it's why I loved games like katamari, and the telltale games, "The walking dead". If you want to reskin a game, make ever so slight changes, because that's what you listed above, and call it a totally original masterpiece that is your business, but to me I see it for what it is.

I wasn't trolling you, I was pointing out how stupid you sound. According to you, everything that isn't DOW2 is a reskin/copy/repoff, which is wrong.

CoH was out before DoW2, same game. Myth was out before both, same game. DoW2 is a reskin of every squad-based RTS that came before it.

There, how stupid does that sound?

Rule Number One is Be Polite. If you can't follow the rules you agreed to by making an account then you can't post here. Please keep this in mind before pushing the reply button.

 Frankenberry wrote:
I wasn't trolling you, I was pointing out how stupid you sound. According to you, everything that isn't DOW2 is a reskin/copy/repoff, which is wrong.

CoH was out before DoW2, same game. Myth was out before both, same game. DoW2 is a reskin of every squad-based RTS that came before it.

There, how stupid does that sound?

I'm not going to insult you, call you stupid or any other names as I originally wanted to, I'll just put you on ignore.

Niexist wrote:

 Kain wrote:

Niexist wrote:
I personally loved dawn of war 2, I've played through 3 campaigns so far, and really it is what got me into TT. The characters are awesome (If I ever make an ork army, it will be freebootaz, because kap'n bludflagg just rocked the whole game)

I also played the original dawn of war prior to playing part 2, and honestly the game is a crock. It was released in 2004, and is pretty much a clone of C&C:RA, and Warcraft 1/2/starcraft. Just because you rename/reskin the farms doesn't make them not a farm. There was even an armory, the same exact kind of turrets and everything. I liked the Gabriel Angelos storyline, but I never played much past the original game, I got to maybe the second mission in winter assault. I mean if you have to copy every gameplay aspect of a game made ten years before yours, you have stale gameplay in my opinion.

Anyway, I'm sure I'll get flamed for calling out DoW for what it is, but it is my opinion

C&C is not like DoW at all.

DoW's big innovation was actually starting the trend towards squad based combat with a lesser emphasis on resource gathering and building sprawling fortresses for bases.

C&C is perhaps the most turtle happy big sprawling base series with a huge emphasis on resource gathering you can get without going right to Total Annihilation-esque RTS games.

You don't know "impregnable" until you try to assault a well dug in Nod base in Tib Wars.

Okay fine, warcraft was a ripoff of C&C, and DoW was a copy of Warcraft. All of the buildings are equivalent, each force has resource gatherer's, population maxes that must use a farm equivalent to be increased. It even has fog of war. That's like saying SW:TOR is nothing like WoW because it is in space.

Blizzard RTS games have a very distinct style from Command and Conquer's.

Small pop caps, heavy focus on micromanagement and tactics over C&C's emphasis on macromanagement and strategy. Base defenses tend not to be quite as strong whereas in C&C building a fortress to protect yourself while you prepare to drown everyone in mammoth tanks is a valid strategy. Blizzard games also tend to use the pop caps to punish people who rely on high end units, while until Starcraft II they used the unit select limit to punish those who overly relied on hordes.

Also, Blizzard RTS games tend to be decided by an early game rush and are usually over within fifteen or so minutes. Most command and conquer games can last a good half hour or more or so and feature larger scale battles and have a far lesser emphasis on "special abilities" and to date, not one C&C game has ever featured mana or anything remotely like it.

C&C effectively exists as a middle ground between the huge, total war slugging match style of play proferred by Sins of a Solar Empire and Supreme Commander, and the fast paced small scale skirmishes of Dawn of War 2 and Starcraft.

Dawn of War 2 is very much an extreme towards the small scale and fast paced battles, with Dawn of War 1 definitely being towards the smaller end of the scale.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Brother SRM wrote:
I'll put out a little disclaimer in that while I think Dawn of War 1 is a fairly uninteresting and strategy-less slugfest of a game, I absolutely loved it when it came out. It's very of its time, and its time was closing in on a decade ago. It's just aged very, very poorly. However, I don't really see how it's a clone of Starcraft or Command and Conquer. Starcraft is a very math-heavy game, very twitch-based, and built around limited resource territory. Dawn of War is heavy on randomization (accuracy and damage percentages for one), much slower paced, and while the resources decay over time, you can't strip mine out a base area of minerals. The units come in squads instead of individual models and also have separate melee and ranged attacks with different values, which is something I can't recall seeing in RTS games before that point. Dawn of War 2 built on all these points and made them better, but I'll still give credit where it's due.

 Kain wrote:
That's one thing that mystifies me about newer RTS games, the seeming irrational hatred for turtling.

Turtling is like camping in that it isn't usually fun for the other players who aren't doing it. It also makes for a game without any dynamics, which isn't really fun. Fortifying a forward critical location with units or air dropped in bunkers or something is cool, but just building your fort at home while the other guy runs around the map unopposed isn't interesting. It's just prolonging the inevitable and, as someone who's been on both sides of the fort, it can feel an awful lot like you're wasting my time as an attacker.

You haven't lived until you've tried Trench Warfare, the Supreme Commander rendition.

Niexist wrote:

So basically, you ignore the fact that all the buildings in the base are reskinned copies from warcraft? I won't even respond to the guy above you, and his lame attempts at trollings.

Dawn of war 2 on the other hand was a concept of game that hadn't been done to death, in fact I can't really think of another game that I have played with a similar setup. That's what I look for in my video games, something ORIGINAL, it's why I loved games like katamari, and the telltale games, "The walking dead". If you want to reskin a game, make ever so slight changes, because that's what you listed above, and call it a totally original masterpiece that is your business, but to me I see it for what it is.

Which are reskinned from Command and Conquer, which are reskinned from Dune. Right? A building that makes troops, a building that makes vehicles, and a building that upgrades said things are about as archetypical as guns that shoot bullets, buckshot, or rockets in first person shooters. They're kind of mainstays of the genre. I won't say Dawn of War 1 was "a totally original masterpiece" to borrow the words you put in my mouth, but it did have a lot original ideas and implementations of ideas.

 Brother SRM wrote:

Niexist wrote:

So basically, you ignore the fact that all the buildings in the base are reskinned copies from warcraft? I won't even respond to the guy above you, and his lame attempts at trollings.

Dawn of war 2 on the other hand was a concept of game that hadn't been done to death, in fact I can't really think of another game that I have played with a similar setup. That's what I look for in my video games, something ORIGINAL, it's why I loved games like katamari, and the telltale games, "The walking dead". If you want to reskin a game, make ever so slight changes, because that's what you listed above, and call it a totally original masterpiece that is your business, but to me I see it for what it is.

Which are reskinned from Command and Conquer, which are reskinned from Dune. Right? A building that makes troops, a building that makes vehicles, and a building that upgrades said things are about as archetypical as guns that shoot bullets, buckshot, or rockets in first person shooters. They're kind of mainstays of the genre. I won't say Dawn of War 1 was "a totally original masterpiece" to borrow the words you put in my mouth, but it did have a lot original ideas and implementations of ideas.

Say SRM, would this be good for a 40k RTS?




With sup com style ground battles and sins of a solar empire style space battles all in the same map.

You can tell some nutty 40k player is going to try conquering the entire galaxy with some cripplingly disadvantaged faction like the Tau.

Also relevant.

It still seems to have some basebuilding/mining stuff going on, which I don't really like the idea of in a 40k game. However, the battles going from space to planetary landings is very cool! Makes me wish Relic could have done some Homeworld-style space combat with Battlefleet Gothic ships.

 Brother SRM wrote:

Niexist wrote:

So basically, you ignore the fact that all the buildings in the base are reskinned copies from warcraft? I won't even respond to the guy above you, and his lame attempts at trollings.

Dawn of war 2 on the other hand was a concept of game that hadn't been done to death, in fact I can't really think of another game that I have played with a similar setup. That's what I look for in my video games, something ORIGINAL, it's why I loved games like katamari, and the telltale games, "The walking dead". If you want to reskin a game, make ever so slight changes, because that's what you listed above, and call it a totally original masterpiece that is your business, but to me I see it for what it is.

Which are reskinned from Command and Conquer, which are reskinned from Dune. Right? A building that makes troops, a building that makes vehicles, and a building that upgrades said things are about as archetypical as guns that shoot bullets, buckshot, or rockets in first person shooters. They're kind of mainstays of the genre. I won't say Dawn of War 1 was "a totally original masterpiece" to borrow the words you put in my mouth, but it did have a lot original ideas and implementations of ideas.

The fact is warhammer 40k combat has nothing to do with base building at all, from what I've read, they generally move a huge amount of troops into existing structures, and fight. What I would have liked to see is a game that is based off of that premise rather than the premise that all RTS games must have a farm, a stronghold, a barracks, and an armory. What I see is game developers on dawn of war 1 take the easy way out, simply copy another persons idea.

It is like saint's row games, to me they're boring copies of grand theft auto, their whole premise is almost exactly the same as far as gameplay. The same thing can be said for any MMORPG made in the last 7 or 8 years, sure they might be slightly different from WoW, but the basic gameplay is a carbon copy! I want new gameplay, not the same rehashed idea with a couple of new things. Again, the warhammer 40k fluff I've read has NOTHING about base building, or training troops on planet, so why does this game have these things? Only one answer in my mind : Laziness.

Goddamnit Kain.. you beat me to it... but you forgot about the main trailer!

Edit: CURSES!

Anyway, I fully support the effort of making DoW 3 a mix between DoW1 and DoW 2. Base building should return at least to support your army. I think that DoW3 should begin to think on a large scale that Planetary Annihilation is considering, except that planets are not constructed, they are deconstructed as the war drags on. Bases are managed from space, inside starships, where production and resupply occurs depending on the evolution of the spacecraft, or even fleet of spacecraft.

For example: Lets say you always start with your command vessel, with a small force of your choosing at the beginning of every deployment. By managing the power supply / resources of the vessel, you can either choose deploy tanks, or teleport terminators on already deployed infantry with teleport homers. By taking a planetary objective and gaining additional resources the capital ship has additional resources to call for aid. Your capital ship then warps in additional craft, such as a battle barge full of soldiers that becomes part of your fleet and begins to continuously deploy soldiers. Depending on your play style and management skills, you can use swarms of standard infantry to do the job, outfit a small band of extremely powerful, highly skilled soldiers with the relics inside your craft, or a mixture of the two. As your soldiers gain experience, they become even more deadly, so ensuring the survival of a core division of troops will make them very lethal on the battlefield (either by favor of armament, or a very large meatshield.) You'll have to manage between shifting the resources of your fleet to defend itself from attack, support the troops on the ground, or taking the time to call in additional support.

The other neat part of this is that bases become mobile, meaning that if a planet is lost, it is ok to retreat, regroup, and begin to fortify another position - so long as your command ship survives with fuel, you can limp on. Objectives range from resource gathering nodes, (starport fueling stations - powering your warp drives or equivalents), treasure troves where relics are stored, civilian populace centers (where they can be consumed for power if not aligned to the IoM, or recruited for additional troop support by the IoM), or defensive positions where orbital cannons and massive void shield stations exist to halt the advance of huge armies. There could be countless others, like research stations and other mysterious objectives, but Kain said it right, DoW has the full capability of going to a galaxy wide conflict, Exterminatus can be implemented, armies can be both huge and highly customizatible and RPG feeling, and bases can both exist and be refreshingly new and exciting.

Well, two game suggestions in one thread...yes please? Any strategy game where I get to use a relativistic rock as a valid weapon of war has to make me smile.

 Brother SRM wrote:
It still seems to have some basebuilding/mining stuff going on, which I don't really like the idea of in a 40k game. However, the battles going from space to planetary landings is very cool! Makes me wish Relic could have done some Homeworld-style space combat with Battlefleet Gothic ships.

You could have the troops be recruited total war style in a galactic map and drop them off on a planet.

Although you could give the Tyranids and Orks real time unit production to better suit their hordey nature.

Niexist wrote:

 Brother SRM wrote:

Niexist wrote:

So basically, you ignore the fact that all the buildings in the base are reskinned copies from warcraft? I won't even respond to the guy above you, and his lame attempts at trollings.

Dawn of war 2 on the other hand was a concept of game that hadn't been done to death, in fact I can't really think of another game that I have played with a similar setup. That's what I look for in my video games, something ORIGINAL, it's why I loved games like katamari, and the telltale games, "The walking dead". If you want to reskin a game, make ever so slight changes, because that's what you listed above, and call it a totally original masterpiece that is your business, but to me I see it for what it is.

Which are reskinned from Command and Conquer, which are reskinned from Dune. Right? A building that makes troops, a building that makes vehicles, and a building that upgrades said things are about as archetypical as guns that shoot bullets, buckshot, or rockets in first person shooters. They're kind of mainstays of the genre. I won't say Dawn of War 1 was "a totally original masterpiece" to borrow the words you put in my mouth, but it did have a lot original ideas and implementations of ideas.

The fact is warhammer 40k combat has nothing to do with base building at all, from what I've read, they generally move a huge amount of troops into existing structures, and fight. What I would have liked to see is a game that is based off of that premise rather than the premise that all RTS games must have a farm, a stronghold, a barracks, and an armory. What I see is game developers on dawn of war 1 take the easy way out, simply copy another persons idea.

It is like saint's row games, to me they're boring copies of grand theft auto, their whole premise is almost exactly the same as far as gameplay. The same thing can be said for any MMORPG made in the last 7 or 8 years, sure they might be slightly different from WoW, but the basic gameplay is a carbon copy! I want new gameplay, not the same rehashed idea with a couple of new things. Again, the warhammer 40k fluff I've read has NOTHING about base building, or training troops on planet, so why does this game have these things? Only one answer in my mind : Laziness.

You say laziness, I say a method of keeping army growth under control. By the sounds of it, you would like to have everything pop onto the map all at once, like a giant version of the DoW II and Chaos Rising campaign missions (well, perhaps not drop pods, but you understand what I mean). It could work, but that's not the pacing that the game devs wanted. This also allows for a semblance of balance. If you can't produce units in-game, and you felt like spamming a particular unit, and your opponent brought the hard counter, you won't have a good time. You never hear RTS players complain about list tailoring, whereas it is something discussed with relative frequency here on Dakka.

If you want new gameplay, move to a different genre. At its core, RTS (or strategy games of any sort) is ordering units of varying size and potency across the map(/board/table) to smash the other player's units. With your comparison of GTA and Saint's Row, I personally disagree about them being "boring copies". While the core ideas are the same (crime, carjacking), I feel Saint's Row (3 anyway) executed this formula much more engagingly, primarily the ability to put up a good fight before you get wiped out by the enemy without use of cheats. But I digress. If your argument boils down to "if it's roughly along the same lines as the game before it, it's garbage," then I don't think there's much else that can be discussed. Both games have their merits, and places they fall short, but poking at those soft spots alone without presenting anything on those strong suits leaves for weaker points. Your argument pretty much reads "WoW did it first, so every other RTS game that has a base-building mechanic is a boring repaint." If these kind of games aren't your cup of tea, then to each their own. People will argue against you.

I'm also a turtle player, and like to have a strong defensive point while amassing a large force to go forth and have a roflstomp with my enemies. You can tell I don't go for too much of a challenge with these sorts of things. I have played all of the DoW (minus winter assault) and DoW II games, and enjoy them both, though I do miss the base building, even if it would be just one more unit production building. But, as I said earlier, to each their own.

 dementedwombat wrote:
Well, two game suggestions in one thread...yes please? Any strategy game where I get to use a relativistic rock as a valid weapon of war has to make me smile.

Planetary Annihilation is an upcoming indie spiritual successor to Supreme Commander and it's own spiritual predecessor Total Annihilation.

And they're definitely upping the hell out of the ante in PA.

BladeSwinga wrote:

Niexist wrote:

 Brother SRM wrote:

Niexist wrote:

So basically, you ignore the fact that all the buildings in the base are reskinned copies from warcraft? I won't even respond to the guy above you, and his lame attempts at trollings.

Dawn of war 2 on the other hand was a concept of game that hadn't been done to death, in fact I can't really think of another game that I have played with a similar setup. That's what I look for in my video games, something ORIGINAL, it's why I loved games like katamari, and the telltale games, "The walking dead". If you want to reskin a game, make ever so slight changes, because that's what you listed above, and call it a totally original masterpiece that is your business, but to me I see it for what it is.

Which are reskinned from Command and Conquer, which are reskinned from Dune. Right? A building that makes troops, a building that makes vehicles, and a building that upgrades said things are about as archetypical as guns that shoot bullets, buckshot, or rockets in first person shooters. They're kind of mainstays of the genre. I won't say Dawn of War 1 was "a totally original masterpiece" to borrow the words you put in my mouth, but it did have a lot original ideas and implementations of ideas.

The fact is warhammer 40k combat has nothing to do with base building at all, from what I've read, they generally move a huge amount of troops into existing structures, and fight. What I would have liked to see is a game that is based off of that premise rather than the premise that all RTS games must have a farm, a stronghold, a barracks, and an armory. What I see is game developers on dawn of war 1 take the easy way out, simply copy another persons idea.

It is like saint's row games, to me they're boring copies of grand theft auto, their whole premise is almost exactly the same as far as gameplay. The same thing can be said for any MMORPG made in the last 7 or 8 years, sure they might be slightly different from WoW, but the basic gameplay is a carbon copy! I want new gameplay, not the same rehashed idea with a couple of new things. Again, the warhammer 40k fluff I've read has NOTHING about base building, or training troops on planet, so why does this game have these things? Only one answer in my mind : Laziness.

You say laziness, I say a method of keeping army growth under control. By the sounds of it, you would like to have everything pop onto the map all at once, like a giant version of the DoW II and Chaos Rising campaign missions (well, perhaps not drop pods, but you understand what I mean). It could work, but that's not the pacing that the game devs wanted. This also allows for a semblance of balance. If you can't produce units in-game, and you felt like spamming a particular unit, and your opponent brought the hard counter, you won't have a good time. You never hear RTS players complain about list tailoring, whereas it is something discussed with relative frequency here on Dakka.

If you want new gameplay, move to a different genre. At its core, RTS (or strategy games of any sort) is ordering units of varying size and potency across the map(/board/table) to smash the other player's units. With your comparison of GTA and Saint's Row, I personally disagree about them being "boring copies". While the core ideas are the same (crime, carjacking), I feel Saint's Row (3 anyway) executed this formula much more engagingly, primarily the ability to put up a good fight before you get wiped out by the enemy without use of cheats. But I digress. If your argument boils down to "if it's roughly along the same lines as the game before it, it's garbage," then I don't think there's much else that can be discussed. Both games have their merits, and places they fall short, but poking at those soft spots alone without presenting anything on those strong suits leaves for weaker points. Your argument pretty much reads "WoW did it first, so every other RTS game that has a base-building mechanic is a boring repaint." If these kind of games aren't your cup of tea, then to each their own. People will argue against you.

I'm also a turtle player, and like to have a strong defensive point while amassing a large force to go forth and have a roflstomp with my enemies. You can tell I don't go for too much of a challenge with these sorts of things. I have played all of the DoW (minus winter assault) and DoW II games, and enjoy them both, though I do miss the base building, even if it would be just one more unit production building. But, as I said earlier, to each their own.

There is a hundred different ways you could do it rather than just all units on the field at once, perhaps you start with a small force, and have to take an orbital relay or something over to call in reinforcements from any nearby imperial navy. Make it something where you have a relationship meter with different forces such as the leader of a space marine chapter, or an imperial navy commander, which dictates how much troops they'll be willing to send to help in your campaign. You could make it about holding key fortified locations, rather than obliterate all enemy units on the map to win like how objectives are meant to be held in the TT.

Also, WoW is an MMORPG not a RTS game not sure what you're talking about on that last part.

Niexist wrote:

BladeSwinga wrote:

Niexist wrote:

 Brother SRM wrote:

Niexist wrote:

So basically, you ignore the fact that all the buildings in the base are reskinned copies from warcraft? I won't even respond to the guy above you, and his lame attempts at trollings.

Dawn of war 2 on the other hand was a concept of game that hadn't been done to death, in fact I can't really think of another game that I have played with a similar setup. That's what I look for in my video games, something ORIGINAL, it's why I loved games like katamari, and the telltale games, "The walking dead". If you want to reskin a game, make ever so slight changes, because that's what you listed above, and call it a totally original masterpiece that is your business, but to me I see it for what it is.

Which are reskinned from Command and Conquer, which are reskinned from Dune. Right? A building that makes troops, a building that makes vehicles, and a building that upgrades said things are about as archetypical as guns that shoot bullets, buckshot, or rockets in first person shooters. They're kind of mainstays of the genre. I won't say Dawn of War 1 was "a totally original masterpiece" to borrow the words you put in my mouth, but it did have a lot original ideas and implementations of ideas.

The fact is warhammer 40k combat has nothing to do with base building at all, from what I've read, they generally move a huge amount of troops into existing structures, and fight. What I would have liked to see is a game that is based off of that premise rather than the premise that all RTS games must have a farm, a stronghold, a barracks, and an armory. What I see is game developers on dawn of war 1 take the easy way out, simply copy another persons idea.

It is like saint's row games, to me they're boring copies of grand theft auto, their whole premise is almost exactly the same as far as gameplay. The same thing can be said for any MMORPG made in the last 7 or 8 years, sure they might be slightly different from WoW, but the basic gameplay is a carbon copy! I want new gameplay, not the same rehashed idea with a couple of new things. Again, the warhammer 40k fluff I've read has NOTHING about base building, or training troops on planet, so why does this game have these things? Only one answer in my mind : Laziness.

You say laziness, I say a method of keeping army growth under control. By the sounds of it, you would like to have everything pop onto the map all at once, like a giant version of the DoW II and Chaos Rising campaign missions (well, perhaps not drop pods, but you understand what I mean). It could work, but that's not the pacing that the game devs wanted. This also allows for a semblance of balance. If you can't produce units in-game, and you felt like spamming a particular unit, and your opponent brought the hard counter, you won't have a good time. You never hear RTS players complain about list tailoring, whereas it is something discussed with relative frequency here on Dakka.

If you want new gameplay, move to a different genre. At its core, RTS (or strategy games of any sort) is ordering units of varying size and potency across the map(/board/table) to smash the other player's units. With your comparison of GTA and Saint's Row, I personally disagree about them being "boring copies". While the core ideas are the same (crime, carjacking), I feel Saint's Row (3 anyway) executed this formula much more engagingly, primarily the ability to put up a good fight before you get wiped out by the enemy without use of cheats. But I digress. If your argument boils down to "if it's roughly along the same lines as the game before it, it's garbage," then I don't think there's much else that can be discussed. Both games have their merits, and places they fall short, but poking at those soft spots alone without presenting anything on those strong suits leaves for weaker points. Your argument pretty much reads "WoW did it first, so every other RTS game that has a base-building mechanic is a boring repaint." If these kind of games aren't your cup of tea, then to each their own. People will argue against you.

I'm also a turtle player, and like to have a strong defensive point while amassing a large force to go forth and have a roflstomp with my enemies. You can tell I don't go for too much of a challenge with these sorts of things. I have played all of the DoW (minus winter assault) and DoW II games, and enjoy them both, though I do miss the base building, even if it would be just one more unit production building. But, as I said earlier, to each their own.

There is a hundred different ways you could do it rather than just all units on the field at once, perhaps you start with a small force, and have to take an orbital relay or something over to call in reinforcements from any nearby imperial navy. Make it something where you have a relationship meter with different forces such as the leader of a space marine chapter, or an imperial navy commander, which dictates how much troops they'll be willing to send to help in your campaign. You could make it about holding key fortified locations, rather than obliterate all enemy units on the map to win like how objectives are meant to be held in the TT.

Also, WoW is an MMORPG not a RTS game not sure what you're talking about on that last part.

So effectively World in Conflict with a less punishing pop cap?

I'd like to add on to my previous post about mobile space bases... they'd basically be MCV's from Command and Conquer that aren't horribly defenseless and slow behemoths, they instead would be these frightening creatures:



They'd have 3 different modes (much the same as the old DoW2 commanders) - Strategic Bombardment, Interstellar Combat, Telepathic Relay

Strategic Bombardment - The Command Vessel positions itself in lower orbit, becoming vulnerable to both enemy spacecraft and orbital defenses, but can deliever punishing salvos of firepower. If outfitted correctly, the battleship can lay waste to entire continents, or even deliver the dreaded blow of exterminatus. This is also the only mode a command vessel can allow transport of troops to a planetary surface. CV's that are carriers forfiet firepower with the ability to quickly transport more troops to the ground.

Interstellar Combat - Allows the devastating weapons of a battleship to brought against enemies in the void of space, as well as movement between celestial bodies and even Warp capabilities. Carrier CV's forfeit firepower with the ability to deploy fighters and bombers to defend themselves from attack.

Telepathic Relay - Emergency signals that can travel the vast plains of the galaxy to listening ears require a vast amount of energy. To be effective in any combat situation, every army will eventually need to call for aid. However, it is impossible for every ally to be immediately on the scene, and due to the perils of the warp, a CV must devote its attentions to remain as a guiding light to incoming help. To break the relay would mean those who were inside the warp would suddenly be flying blind. Where they would end up is anyone's guess, but what is certain is that cancelling a relay is no laughing matter, for when the help arrives, it may not be alone....

Please tell me more about how Dawn of War is just a rename / reskin of Warcraft / Starcraft / Red Alert:
Warcraft
Warcraft II
Warcraft III
Starcraft
CnC: Red Alert
Dawn of War
Now if you excuse me, after spending 2 episodes of GitS making this and nostalgiaing everywhere, I'm off to reinstall Warcraft II, III, Starcraft, CnC: Tiberium Sun - Firestorm and Dawn of War.
Maybe SupCom.

And for those of you interested, Here's the unit list for SupCom