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.

WAIT what its the Iron Harvest team?


cause yeah that game looked VERY pretty but its AI was - I mean it wasn't even there. Heck the difficulty slider didn't actually do anything and the only time the AI was any threat was
a) just after it got its free unit number boost (that you also got) by teching up
b) If you chose to build only infantry - at which point the AI built only flamers.


Otherwise it was entirely devoid of fun. It wouldn't contest resource points; in fact it didn't really do anything. Which is a shame as the game was a fantastic concept and mechanically worked.
It's a big worry because if there's one thing that the RTS community is good at proving - its that its VERY singleplayer minded. You can get lucky with a Starcraft or Age of Empires experience and get a big multiplayer community going, but a lot of customers only go as far as VS AI and even the mutiplayer side likes a good AI


I'm suddenly very worried- relic might have made mistakes with 3 but they were a solid developer team.
IH team did not impress me one bit so they'd have to seriously step up their game a LOT






That said on the early video I skipped through it sounds like Dawn of War 1 updated which is good; a few things from 2 like power harvesting points. The higher unit cap also sounds just like what I'd be after with Dawn of War 1 style play.

 Overread wrote:
WAIT what its the Iron Harvest team?


cause yeah that game looked VERY pretty but its AI was - I mean it wasn't even there. Heck the difficulty slider didn't actually do anything and the only time the AI was any threat was
a) just after it got its free unit number boost (that you also got) by teching up
b) If you chose to build only infantry - at which point the AI built only flamers.

Otherwise it was entirely devoid of fun. It wouldn't contest resource points; in fact it didn't really do anything. Which is a shame as the game was a fantastic concept and mechanically worked.
It's a big worry because if there's one thing that the RTS community is good at proving - its that its VERY singleplayer minded. You can get lucky with a Starcraft or Age of Empires experience and get a big multiplayer community going, but a lot of customers only go as far as VS AI and even the mutiplayer side likes a good AI

I'm suddenly very worried- relic might have made mistakes with 3 but they were a solid developer team.
IH team did not impress me one bit so they'd have to seriously step up their game a LOT


That said on the early video I skipped through it sounds like Dawn of War 1 updated which is good; a few things from 2 like power harvesting points. The higher unit cap also sounds just like what I'd be after with Dawn of War 1 style play.

Not just the Developper but also the greedy ass publisher.
And i already can point to the aenemic combat in the shooting realm that makes is the hallmark of Iron Harvest.
Also no it didn't really mechanically work, as it was in essence a CoH 2 clone with a worse cover system and horrendous pathing.

Ahh yes I forgot the pathing problems!

Also be prepared for units not having abilities, the whole of Iron harvest had no abilities for infantry, nvm Cover that was horrendously fidly.

Maybe we'll get a new Blood Ravens marine when this is released...

...until then, I'm going to assume this won't be terrible.

So long as it sticks to Dawn of War 1 gameplay it should be fine. Dawn of War 2 was not a bad game by any stretch, I just never really considered it a proper sequel give how different it was from the first.

I think they tackled the cover system mechanic, like it’s a boardgame. Judging by gameplay foootage, a single squad gets packed into a dedicated pocket of cover, like they are sardines, and stand straight like they are battle droids. Looks quite lame.
Hopefully they at least don’t get the cover bonus, if they get shot from the back

I’ve watched a few gameplay reviews that have sprung up recently, all of them say pretty much the same thing, without any real critique, other than “feels a bit raw here and there”, which felt like people don’t want to lose their journalism rights in the eyes of the developer.

Maps look quite small

And there is no build routine 721. We get base building, but no actual builders. Odd choice, a bit too command and conquery for my taste.
One of the reasons why I like RTS :(
Even “Prehistoric tribes”, a mobile game for button phone from 20 years ago, had builders

SnotlingPimpWagon wrote:
I think they tackled the cover system mechanic, like it’s a boardgame. Judging by gameplay foootage, a single squad gets packed into a dedicated pocket of cover, like they are sardines, and stand straight like they are battle droids. Looks quite lame.
Hopefully they at least don’t get the cover bonus, if they get shot from the back

I’ve watched a few gameplay reviews that have sprung up recently, all of them say pretty much the same thing, without any real critique, other than “feels a bit raw here and there”, which felt like people don’t want to lose their journalism rights in the eyes of the developer.

Maps look quite small

And there is no build routine 721. We get base building, but no actual builders. Odd choice, a bit too command and conquery for my taste.
One of the reasons why I like RTS :(
Even “Prehistoric tribes”, a mobile game for button phone from 20 years ago, had builders

That is normal and also par of the bill with the publishers there. Sadly it has become extremely commonplace as the quality of games has devolved and the access to the mental selflobotomisation that is social media increased.

I saw a screenshot that showed orks get mekboys which are identified as builder units, so not sure that critique is accurate.

The real question though is if the game will have army customization, or are we all stuck playing blood ravens?

The build and resource system sounds like they've built it out of the Dawn of War 2 style and then upped the unit limits and removed some of the tactical to make it practical to run larger forces.

That in itself isn't bad nor good its simply a style choice. CnC style or Starcraft building units style are both solid fun systems in their own right.



I'd be more concerned about map design - these days you seem to get the choice of a bonkers massive map that's open access but has only a few key points to contest; or lane style maps that are small, fast and often aimed purely at trying to squeeze as many multiplayer games in as possible.

And AI design and pathfinding. If the AI is braindead boring to play against; if the pathfinding is poor; etc... if those core components are bad then you've got problems no matter if your buildings are freebuild or builder based.

chaos0xomega wrote:
I saw a screenshot that showed orks get mekboys which are identified as builder units, so not sure that critique is accurate.

The real question though is if the game will have army customization, or are we all stuck playing blood ravens?

Hmm, that’s peculiar. Maybe he has specific buildings like turrets that he can erect as a leader skill? Judging by the gameplay footage, you just place a building (in the glimpse we get of the ork base). Also, I think I heard reviewers say that there are no servitors, bonesinges, ect. But I’m not 100% sure, if I rember that right, I thought I did.

SnotlingPimpWagon wrote:

I’ve watched a few gameplay reviews that have sprung up recently, all of them say pretty much the same thing, without any real critique, other than “feels a bit raw here and there”, which felt like people don’t want to lose their journalism rights in the eyes of the developer.

Sadly i noticed this too and feels normal these days.

Iron Harvest wasn't very good, I wanted to like it but the fun aspect just wasn't there. Gonna be cautious about my hype with this one.

"Gameplay looks terrible". Alpha stages tend not to look brilliant, yes.
In other news, fire hot, more at 11.

Indeed, but gameplay looks dull at Alpha AND their previous game being lackluster in key areas on delivery is when concerns rise.


I honestly hope they've hired the right staff; got the time timeline; got enough budget and do a really fantastically awesome job with this. I really want to see Dawn of War rise up again and become the next big major RTS on the market. 1 was outstanding; 2 was great*; 3 was solidly made but aimed at the wrong target audience and features.

4 so far sounds like a blend of 1 and 2 which should be a successful combo.


*Honestly I feel mostly let down by Retribution pushing that whole "unique campaign for each faction" which turned out to be "identical linear missions with just the briefing changing".

1 was great. The rest of the series might as well not exist.

2 was different but fun - 3 I must really play one day to really find out; but yeah that one seemed like they leaned far too far into trying to make it a moba type game or online/mp focused and such.

 Overread wrote:


4 so far sounds like a blend of 1 and 2 which should be a successful combo.

Keep in mind they said this about dawn of war 3 as well and that was a Moba.

I wonder if there will be a novel like there was for 1, 2 and 3.

I'm really excited to hear this piece of news!

Glad to hear Necrons are making a return after they got teased in the end of Dawn of War 3. Also neat to hear the Mechanicus are now a playable faction in this. Can't wait to see what other races get added.

I turned off all that sync kill animation stuff to get better performance and less distractions.

Another trailer.

The one thing that stands out to me is that the voice acting sounds -- flat. Characterful sound but just not the accent/edge to it to bring it to life. Like its clipped talking.

Blinded by nostalgia glasses for DoW I, I'd forgotten that DoW IV would be Primaris marines by default and not Firstborn.

I mean, one would expect they would do it, but ...oh well. I wonder if Firstborn will be in the game at all or as a DLC or something.

If nothing else, I'm sure a modder will get around to it.

I guarantee there will be no loyalist First Born, we're way past that point.

We've basically hit the point where we've removed the distinction between Primaris and Firstborn entirely. It's all just Space Marines again, just at the new scale.

However one wishes to distinguish it, I’m simply hoping for some Mk VI and Mk VII loyalist marines. (Not expecting, just hoping.)

 LunarSol wrote:
We've basically hit the point where we've removed the distinction between Primaris and Firstborn entirely. It's all just Space Marines again, just at the new scale.

Thats not really accurate, theres a few firstborn units (tactical marines, devastators, etc.) which no longer exist in the Primaris format.

I can see some older armour marks at most as being a cosmetic option for some of the leaders in the game, but I don't see it as very likely for the army's baseline units. You can tell by the vast majority of stuff for recent SM-centered games that it's all followed GW's push for the new model range.

chaos0xomega wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:
We've basically hit the point where we've removed the distinction between Primaris and Firstborn entirely. It's all just Space Marines again, just at the new scale.

Thats not really accurate, theres a few firstborn units (tactical marines, devastators, etc.) which no longer exist in the Primaris format.

I'd expect all of those to get reworked in some form sooner than later. They're not going to hand around at the smaller scale.