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.

 Melissia wrote:
Don't pretend to speak for anyone but yourself.

tone done the aggression a tad melissia, he has a valid point, a lot of RTS players like base building, I do, when done right.

 Formosa wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
Don't pretend to speak for anyone but yourself.

tone done the aggression a tad melissia, he has a valid point, a lot of RTS players like base building, I do, when done right.

Tone down your tone trolling, lad, because I made a valid point as well. He was making a statement of fact about "most" players likes and what they consider an integral part of the experience, without any evidence to back himself up.

And frankly, there's a difference between liking base building and saying "it's not really real-time strategy without base building". I would argue, for example, that there's far more strategy involved in, for example, Wargame which has no base building, than Starcraft, where it features prominently. But I'd also argue there's far more strategy involved in games like Stronghold or Supreme Commander, too. I like base building. I don't like how DoW1 actually implemented it. And I think moving back to the way DoW1 did it will make the game lesser as a result.

Base building is merely one way it can be done. It can be done well, though most of the time it isn't. And IMO, DoW1 did it poorly.

 General Annoyance wrote:
I'll stress again that Ground Control and Wargame both have resource management, no base building and make sense as well

Ground Control was a Real Time Tactical game, whereas something like Starcraft is a Real Time Strategy game. There's a significant differnece. DoWI was more the later, and DoWII more the former (in single-player, at least).

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 General Annoyance wrote:
I'll stress again that Ground Control and Wargame both have resource management, no base building and make sense as well

Ground Control was a Real Time Tactical game, whereas something like Starcraft is a Real Time Strategy game. There's a significant differnece. DoWI was more the later, and DoWII more the former (in single-player, at least).

I meant Ground Control 2 mate, as I specified after and before with the gameplay

Never bothered with that one. Was it as good as the first?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Never bothered with that one. Was it as good as the first?

Check out the gameplay on page two of this thread - they ditched the real time tactics system for real time strategy, and armies are not selected before battle; my argument was that it makes for a much more viable and true to 40k system whereby captured landing zones are used to call in reinforcements. As a game it was better than the first as the UI was much improved, alongside graphics and gameplay mechanics

@Ashiraya - sorry I didn't reply to you, I guess the low time to kill is a result of the need for game balance - if the Space Marines are as tough as they were in Space Marine then nobody would play Eldar or Orks. Plus I guess most of the weapons in that game aside from the bolters can kill a marine fairly quickly.

I think Space Marine did the toughness correctly, since Captain Titus could easily be butchered by a few Orks and even by sustained Lasgun fire, but if you were good with your combos and skills at aiming and dodging attacks, you became an unstoppable killing machine; a perfect balance of fun gameplay and true to universe effects imo

 Melissia wrote:

 Formosa wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
Don't pretend to speak for anyone but yourself.

tone done the aggression a tad melissia, he has a valid point, a lot of RTS players like base building, I do, when done right.

Tone down your tone trolling, lad, because I made a valid point as well. He was making a statement of fact about "most" players likes and what they consider an integral part of the experience, without any evidence to back himself up.

And frankly, there's a difference between liking base building and saying "it's not really real-time strategy without base building". I would argue, for example, that there's far more strategy involved in, for example, Wargame which has no base building, than Starcraft, where it features prominently. But I'd also argue there's far more strategy involved in games like Stronghold or Supreme Commander, too. I like base building. I don't like how DoW1 actually implemented it. And I think moving back to the way DoW1 did it will make the game lesser as a result.

Base building is merely one way it can be done. It can be done well, though most of the time it isn't. And IMO, DoW1 did it poorly.

Actually Mel, you made no point at all, you basically had what I would call a snipe, he made available point that a lot of us (as in, a lot of people) enjoy base building, you don't, that's fine, how you word somthing and how it comes across is very important in a polite conversation.

As to the "most players" he may have a point, as base building is in "nearly" every rts game out there, but it's done badly by most of the rts genre, so I don't enjoy it like I used to, I only like it when it's done right.

I don't dislike base building but I do not feel it fits 40k.

A DoW2-esque system where you have drop-in turrets and webway gates is fine but anything more becomes implausible, unless the scenario is a siege.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Right now I am just waiting for the beta. I will get a DoW3 version of my Forbidden Lore mod rolling as soon as possible. I can already tell the game will need it and hopefully the DoW3 game will be more accepting of a scale adjustment, so to speak.

 Formosa wrote:
Actually Mel, you made no point at all, you basically had what I would call a snipe,

I don't give a damn what you pretend to call it. That was the point I was making, and quite obviously so, no matter how much you'd like to pretend otherwise.

Could you stop focusing the conversation on me, now?

 Melissia wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
Actually Mel, you made no point at all, you basically had what I would call a snipe,

I don't give a damn what you pretend to call it. That was the point I was making, and quite obviously so, no matter how much you'd like to pretend otherwise.

Could you stop focusing the conversation on me, now?

tried to be polite, now reporting for aggressive behaviour.

RULE #1 is NOT OPTIONAL.

Consider this the only general in thread warning before warnings - and possibly suspensions - get handed out.

Ashiraya wrote:

 Gamgee wrote:
This might shock you, but Space Marines can die. Sure they are tougher than a normal IG soldier, but at the end of the day they are not each infallible super gods they die all the time to stuff.

I was saying 'Space Marines die too fast to their own weapons'.

I know daring to say that Space Marines die too fast to absolutely anything is provoking xeno/IG players into telling you to check your SM privilege, but saying that they kill each other too quickly has no effect whatsoever on your Tau and certainly does not imply that they cannot die.

In real life bullet resistant armor only works for one bullet and sometimes not even that

And this is not real life.

This.

Space Marine felt like the best depiction of 40k in a video game setting.

The Space Marines felt powerful and their (incredibly advanced and effective) armour actually looked like it resisted damage (unlike TT, where the d6 system lets them down), yet could easily be killed by other Space Marines or 'Eavy armoured Nobz. The game's hardest difficulty, I thought, was the accurate portrayal of how a Space Marine Captain could tear through an army in such a way. He's never solo-ing an entire Waaagh! - instead, he fights through smaller bands, and takes off the head (quite literally).

Whilst melta-shotgunning in PvP was an issue, it still needed you to get close - bolters didn't just gun Astartes in full power armour down instantly like CoD or CS. The PvP kill time could have been reduced, the effective range or fire rate of meltaguns could have been reduced, and I think power weapons (thunder hammer, power axe, power sword) could maybe have been buffed. Each fight should have felt a little longer, but aside from that, it's been the best way to show Astartes durability.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:


Whilst melta-shotgunning in PvP was an issue, it still needed you to get close - bolters didn't just gun Astartes in full power armour down instantly like CoD or CS. The PvP kill time could have been reduced, the effective range or fire rate of meltaguns could have been reduced, and I think power weapons (thunder hammer, power axe, power sword) could maybe have been buffed. Each fight should have felt a little longer, but aside from that, it's been the best way to show Astartes durability.

You could play with double armor in custom games.

It felt extremely fluffy and was very skill-receptive since it was harder to camp and oneshot. I wish I had more friends to do that with.

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:


Whilst melta-shotgunning in PvP was an issue, it still needed you to get close - bolters didn't just gun Astartes in full power armour down instantly like CoD or CS. The PvP kill time could have been reduced, the effective range or fire rate of meltaguns could have been reduced, and I think power weapons (thunder hammer, power axe, power sword) could maybe have been buffed. Each fight should have felt a little longer, but aside from that, it's been the best way to show Astartes durability.

You could play with double armor in custom games.

It felt extremely fluffy and was very skill-receptive since it was harder to camp and oneshot. I wish I had more friends to do that with.

Same. I wish there were more lobbies on the game, but it seems most people have stopped. Booted it up not last week, but it seemed no-one was playing.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Same. I wish there were more lobbies on the game, but it seems most people have stopped. Booted it up not last week, but it seemed no-one was playing.

The community on PS3 died sometime this February, as that was the last time I could get a game easy. It still runs peer to peer though, so if you got 3 other friends you could still play Exterminatus together

Or solo it. Solo Exterminatus is immensely enjoyable. Going Assault Marine with Swordman's Zeal is the obvious way to do it but literally five minutes ago I beat my record as Tactical Marine - last wave of arena 2, Chaos Invasion, boltgun + frags + serrated combat blade + larraman's blessing. Over 600 kills!

You are not as powerful as Titus in the singleplayer campaign (he has Fury and execute moves, he doesn't need to brace his heavy bolter, his melee swing combos are more potent, etc; he is a captain after all!) but if you handle it well you can still kick lots and lots of Ork butt.

Smudge, want to try a double armor 1v1?

Everytime I tried Exterminatus on my own I died whenever it reached a "stand on this random circle for 1 minute" wave.

Was much better at the Campaign - beat it on hard without switching out the Chainsword and mostly using the Bolt Pistol/Plasma Pistol (until the game thrusts a Thunder Hammer into your arms in the final batch of levels). That shoulder bash combo is so OP in the campaign

 General Annoyance wrote:
Everytime I tried Exterminatus on my own I died whenever it reached a "stand on this random circle for 1 minute" wave.

You do not have to stand on it constantly. It is true that they are a bit of a difficulty chokepoint (until the game drowns you in Nobz later on) but you can move on and off, quickly eliminate high damage targets and strategically use grenades.

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

You obviously forgot the most important part:
DoW2 did bad:
-WAY LESS FACTIONS AVAILABLE!!![i]

No relevant faction was exclused from DoW2.

Now you are trolling me ! Alpharius said no trolling .

If you're a fan of DoW2 or Space Marine, then you're the sort of person who would rather watch a movie while holding a controller than actually play a game. You're somebody who hates strategy and doesn't like wargames. DoW3 will not be the right game for you. Strangely, the majority of 40k fans seem to have this attitude.

If you're one of the minority of 40k fans who actually play the tabletop game and you enjoy wargames, DoW3 will probably be your kind of game. Believe it or not, DoW1 was a popular game up until Soulstorm.

 Real News wrote:
If you're a fan of DoW2 or Space Marine, then you're the sort of person who would rather watch a movie while holding a controller than actually play a game. You're somebody who hates strategy and doesn't like wargames. DoW3 will not be the right game for you. Strangely, the majority of 40k fans seem to have this attitude.

If you're one of the minority of 40k fans who actually play the tabletop game and you enjoy wargames, DoW3 will probably be your kind of game. Believe it or not, DoW1 was a popular game up until Soulstorm.

So because we like 2 specific games that you don't like, we therefore are obliged to hate every other strategy game in existence?

I really don't understand how I somehow have that attitude because I'm tired of strategy games with base building in them; it's an old and tired mechanic that has been ditched by a few strategy titles now. But of course I wouldn't know that because I haven't played Total War, Ground Control, Wargame, WH40K Armageddon, Final Liberation etc etc. Man I hate those games

So if you are still playing the TT version of the game, how does this make DOW3 appeal to you? What part of that game in your eyes makes it automatically catch the eye of TT players?

Also if you want to feel better about your statement, I do enjoy playing Telltale games, so I guess I am the sort of person who likes to watch a move with a controller in my hand. I also like pretty much any game genre in existence apart from sidescrolling fighters and horror games. Oh and Strategy and wargames. I hate those for no apparent reason

 Real News wrote:
If you're a fan of DoW2 or Space Marine, then you're the sort of person who would rather watch a movie while holding a controller than actually play a game.

You should try playing it before you say things this embarrassing.

If you're one of the minority of 40k fans who actually play the tabletop game

I have 9000 points of Word Bearers and I play regularly. Your turn, .

 General Annoyance wrote:

 Real News wrote:
If you're a fan of DoW2 or Space Marine, then you're the sort of person who would rather watch a movie while holding a controller than actually play a game. You're somebody who hates strategy and doesn't like wargames. DoW3 will not be the right game for you. Strangely, the majority of 40k fans seem to have this attitude.

If you're one of the minority of 40k fans who actually play the tabletop game and you enjoy wargames, DoW3 will probably be your kind of game. Believe it or not, DoW1 was a popular game up until Soulstorm.

So because we like 2 specific games that you don't like, we therefore are obliged to hate every other strategy game in existence?

I really don't understand how I somehow have that attitude because I'm tired of strategy games with base building in them; it's an old and tired mechanic that has been ditched by a few strategy titles now. But of course I wouldn't know that because I haven't played Total War, Ground Control, Wargame, WH40K Armageddon, Final Liberation etc etc. Man I hate those games

So if you are still playing the TT version of the game, how does this make DOW3 appeal to you? What part of that game in your eyes makes it automatically catch the eye of TT players?

Also if you want to feel better about your statement, I do enjoy playing Telltale games, so I guess I am the sort of person who likes to watch a move with a controller in my hand. I also like pretty much any game genre in existence apart from sidescrolling fighters and horror games. Oh and Strategy and wargames. I hate those for no apparent reason

Fair point!

I like strat games with base building, and I like strat games without base building, mainly ones without these days, whats wrong with a campaign map with stacks like total war? honestly can anyone tell me they wouldn't love TOTAL WAR 40k???

 Formosa wrote:
TOTAL WAR 40k???

We do need this in our lives.

Only if it has SoB in it, Ashiraya. Else it's useless garbage .

They would be part of the Imperium faction, just like SM. Neither have the numbers to hold territory like you do in Total War on a planetary scale.

By numbers and presence, Sisters are more relevant than Space Marines in a TW style game.

 Real News wrote:
If you're a fan of DoW2 or Space Marine, then you're the sort of person who would rather watch a movie while holding a controller than actually play a game.

I think this applies here:

 Alpharius wrote:
RULE #1 is NOT OPTIONAL.

Because apparently, people who like a slightly different playstyle than you aren't REALLY gamers.

Seriously? Even Space Marine can't really be called "watching a movie while holding a controller". Hour by hour going through the game, it really has no more cutscenes than Dawn of War 1, you realize. It was not a Metal Gear style game where there were more cutscenes than actual gameplay. It was very much a gameplay-heavy first person shooter. Same with Dawn of War 2-- a strategy game with a heavy focus on gameplay, a game you have even LESS of an excuse to claim that about than Space Marine, because DoW2 did have base building within its limits to begin with. It just didn't have the generic and frankly out of place starcraft-style base building.

The base building in DoW1 was honestly the worst part of it. It's what you quickly tried to get over with in order to get to the action . Other games-- Command and Conquer 3, for example, or Supreme Commander-- actually have base building as an integral part of the game, with much of the action based around it, rather than base building being a speed bump like it was in DoW1.

Or, to put it another way, if as a dev team you really want DoW3 to have base building, then you need to make base building more interesting. You can make a game where base building is both the core aspect of the game, and make the game fun. But you can't do that if you just half-assedly slap starcrapped style base building on a game that otherwise doesn't really need it.

 Melissia wrote:
By numbers and presence, Sisters are more relevant than Space Marines in a TW style game.

 Real News wrote:
If you're a fan of DoW2 or Space Marine, then you're the sort of person who would rather watch a movie while holding a controller than actually play a game.

I think this applies here:

 Alpharius wrote:
RULE #1 is NOT OPTIONAL.

Because apparently, people who like a slightly different playstyle than you aren't REALLY gamers.

Seriously? Even Space Marine can't really be called "watching a movie while holding a controller". Hour by hour going through the game, it really has no more cutscenes than Dawn of War 1, you realize. It was not a Metal Gear style game where there were more cutscenes than actual gameplay. It was very much a gameplay-heavy first person shooter. Same with Dawn of War 2-- a strategy game with a heavy focus on gameplay, a game you have even LESS of an excuse to claim that about than Space Marine, because DoW2 did have base building within its limits to begin with. It just didn't have the generic and frankly out of place starcraft-style base building.

The base building in DoW1 was honestly the worst part of it. It's what you quickly tried to get over with in order to get to the action . Other games-- Command and Conquer 3, for example, or Supreme Commander-- actually have base building as an integral part of the game, with much of the action based around it, rather than base building being a speed bump like it was in DoW1.

Or, to put it another way, if as a dev team you really want DoW3 to have base building, then you need to make base building more interesting. You can make a game where base building is both the core aspect of the game, and make the game fun. But you can't do that if you just half-assedly slap starcrapped style base building on a game that otherwise doesn't really need it.

Sup com is base building done right, and I very much enjoyed it, satellite bases with tiered defences, scout units etc. So awsome

 Ashiraya wrote:
They would be part of the Imperium faction, just like SM. Neither have the numbers to hold territory like you do in Total War on a planetary scale.

I'd be okay with this, if I can still play Sisters and no Marines .

 Ashiraya wrote:

 =Angel= wrote:
You don't want to achieve this learning/adaptation time through high time-to-kill (TTK) firefights or the game becomes boring and static.

BS. 40k games should take their time instead of rushing down everyone. Marines vs CSM takes time to play out because both are damn tough and IG take time to defeat because they are so damn many.

I disagree. Astartes combat is described as brutal and fast. Astartes on Astartes combat moreso- they know their own weaknesses and their durability is balanced by their offensive power.
I think DOW I struck the balance just right- SM v SM/CSM fights did last long enough for everyone to be shooting and swinging for a while.
Conversely, I've broken stalemates with orks by pooping out tons of small boyz squads, setting every squad to auto repopulate and rushing the enemy, repopulating squads faster than they can kill my dudes.

 Ashiraya wrote:
Every 40k game so far has had a too low TTK. Look at what happens you give a CS TTK to a 40k shooter. You get Eternal Crusade, an utter disaster.

Haven't played it. Have played Space Marine- the combat system didn't lend itself to a high ttk there either. Still, you could tank a few boltershells every now and then without being the worse for wear.