Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Did not find anything in the searches, anyone else hyped for this game?

http://www.dawnofwar2.com/us/home

http://www.gametrailers.com/game/6584.html

I'm hyped.

The graphics look awesome.

It'll be pwnage ^>^

I really enjoy Relic RTS's

I think Company of Heroes is the best RTS out there.

This game looks just as good. Heck, it might even be better than Starcraft 2.

Frankly I am much more interested in this than SC2, which is starting to bore me the more I see of it. You cannot keep just going down the same old fiddly resources/buildings/army route in RTS games, yet it seems SC2 is doing that intentionally just to keep the e-sport crowd happy. Bleh.

Relic are trying something new, thank God.

Yeah, I'm probably in the same boat as you but I actually like playing the old resource building that SC 2 will be doing.


Not every game has to be action oriented like Relic RTS. I dont know how new this game will be compared to Company Of Heroes though because it seems very similar.

Ahh, all that obsessive messing around with trains of workers... it was good when original Warcraft came out but nothing but a pain in a modern day environment, and all part of fiddly rush mechanics in lieu of genuine strategy.

I really just want something from SC2 to actually surprise me and make me think it is a good advance. They have mentioned there will be a new take on single player, but we've heard bog all about it yet.

Compare DoW2, which has said TONS of giod stuff. ind you, they need to be careful- persistent troops can kill actual strategy in an RTS game as you are forced to play overly conservatively; this feature destroys genuine strategy in, say, Fire Emblem (where the AI player could abandon all pretence at strategy and just suicide rush your mages and gain an effective win by forcing you to reload, even though the battle was yours).

Still, latest news is that your personality Sergeants cannot actually be killed, just taken out the fight- good! Much more sensible.

The more I hear, the more I like.

I dont really play online with SC so I dont really care about rushing, or anything like that.

On the other hand, hopefully Relic can make the persistent army in the SP portion of this game not annoying. They way I read was that you only get a few units and thats it during missions. It could turn out like those WC3, or Starcraft exploring missions with your main character.

Well, on-line or not, mass worker manipulation is still fiddly and unnecessary.

I guess, doesn't mean that people cant enjoy it.

Well I would consider that not a rational position. One of Dawn of War's (and subsequently CoH's) main advancements was to take that sort of fiddly nonsense out; it adds nothing useful to the game.

That's if you dont like it.

If people like the resource gathering and building aspect of RTS would find that useful and fun. I enjoy that in some games. I'm a extremely defensive player in RTS's and sometimes an aggressive RTS like CoH is too much.

So I stick in Supreme Commander, and build away.

I agree with both of you guys, I love the resource mechanics, workers getting resources can be entertaining for me, ofcourse Dawn of war does it well in getting requisition, which is great system as well for making players actually have to fight for their right to get higher tier equipment, fighting constantly can happen easily in DOW wheras in Supreme commander or SC if an inintal rush doesnt defeat you then its a sort of slog of either defenses popping up everywhere or in Supreme commanders case, needless streams of units wheras the new DOW 2 features show a brilliant strategic overlook whereby you have not huge swarms of units but specialised squads (this is in Space marines case, its prob diffrent with orks, Tyranids or other forces who reply on numbers)

Ofcourse I cant do without building in games, I love being able to build an enormous industrial workhouse of a base and churn out weapons instead of simply having set forces or paratrooping in forces, imo this can get boring, games like World in Conflict I enjoyed for a fair while and it was fun but the fact you have no base or anything real to defend is a shame imo.

I'm amped for this game, I loved the original and this one sounds like it's really going to try and do new things.

Originally posted by Smasandian
That's if you dont like it.

If people like the resource gathering and building aspect of RTS would find that useful and fun. I enjoy that in some games. I'm a extremely defensive player in RTS's and sometimes an aggressive RTS like CoH is too much.

So I stick in Supreme Commander, and build away.

I entirely disagree. It has nothing to do with whether you like it or not. It actually adds nothing to the game, forcing a player to build multiple resource miners. In fact the game is engineered to make the resource workers rubbish just to force the player to build lots of them when the actual ESSENCE of making use of the strategic resource only mandates that you need to control it. It's pointless circular logic.

So as I say, if you like that, that is not a rational position. There may well be people who like games that are impossible to complete as you only have three lives and die in one hit, or cut scenes that cannot be skipped- but they are still just wrong on any rational level.

Incidentally, that resource model has nothing at all to do with how aggressive the game is or how much you can build defences. That's just the way Relic likes their games (which I have sympathy with as turtling is extremely dull). But there would be nothing to stop, say, Starcraft cutting out the multi-worker tedium and still being offensively/defensively balanced as it is.

Of course, we're basically discussing DoW and CoH here, not DoW2. In cutting out production buildings, DoW2 is going down a whole different concept.

You find turtling dull, I dont.

Its an opinion, not a fact.

I love Relic games, and I love resource games. Having the ability to mass produce units is something I enjoy. Just because there are workers doesnt mean that strategy is thrown out the window. It might not be as strategic as some games, but its a game mechanic I enjoy.

Having insane difficulty and unskippable cutscenes is different than producing little workers bee's to gain lumber. One is bad design, the other is just how it plays. You dont like, dont play it. I on the otherhand enjoy it.

Tyranids! w00t

http://au.pc.ign.com/articles/900/900039p1.html

http://pcmedia.ign.com/pc/image/article/900/900039/warhammer-40000-dawn-of-war-ii-20080819095045310-000.jpg

awsome, I hope they bring the Chaos marines into the game however

Wonder if Daemons will be a separate race now that they have their own codex? That would be cool.

Ime not sure, I think they could still come under Chaos, I think Chaos could become a massive faction what with how many units they have under their command, if theres no Chaos in DOW2 it would be a massive shame, I need traitorous demonic legions to command and Space marines need their other half so to speak

I want to see a Demon prince, blood thirster and other Chaos horrors in the new engine.

cant wait, do we have a set release date yet?

Just early 2009.

This seems like this could be really interesting, but I'm going to have to wait until I heard more to make an actual judgment on whether or not I'm going to buy it. I'm not shelling out $50-60 on a whim.

lol starcraft2 copied this sooo hard

Copied how?

well first off.. its known that blizzard copied warhammer 40k and got starcraft.. same for warhammer and warcraft

but blizzard seemed to want to try to make starcraft 2 look like dawn of war 2.. there are some screen comparisons floatin around if I catch em again I'll post em up

I heard about the comparisons with classes.

But SC2 was announced and shown before Dawn Of War 2, so if those are comparisons than I dont really know who did what first.

I think we all know regardless of graphics Starcraft 2 is going to be compeltly diffrent to Dawn of war, theyll both be great games ime sure

Originally posted by Smasandian
You find turtling dull, I dont.

Its an opinion, not a fact.

I love Relic games, and I love resource games. Having the ability to mass produce units is something I enjoy. Just because there are workers doesnt mean that strategy is thrown out the window. It might not be as strategic as some games, but its a game mechanic I enjoy.

Having insane difficulty and unskippable cutscenes is different than producing little workers bee's to gain lumber. One is bad design, the other is just how it plays. You dont like, dont play it. I on the otherhand enjoy it.

Agreed 100%.

Turtling is actually the strategy I use te most, I'm not very aggressive in RTS's.

And I prefer gathering the resources myself compared too, say, Battle for Middle Earth's way.

Originally posted by Smasandian
You find turtling dull, I dont.

Its an opinion, not a fact.

I love Relic games, and I love resource games. Having the ability to mass produce units is something I enjoy. Just because there are workers doesnt mean that strategy is thrown out the window. It might not be as strategic as some games, but its a game mechanic I enjoy.

Having insane difficulty and unskippable cutscenes is different than producing little workers bee's to gain lumber. One is bad design, the other is just how it plays. You dont like, dont play it. I on the otherhand enjoy it.

Please read my post properly- I did not claim that me finding turtling dull was anything other than an opinion.

However, the way in which the standard RTS use of mass worker units is an outdated mechanic that pointlessly slows up games and makes them overly fiddly IS a fact, and you are simply wrong if you do not see it.

Yup, bad design. Like I say- some people seem to enjoy bad design in games; I canot help that, they are still wrong.

simply wrong from your point of view....Mass workers can be a good strategy mechanic to balance forces and so on, capturing points is all well and good but it can get very boring capturing points over and over, you could say the same about resoruces but personally I dont think about mining resources or collecitng them due to the mechanic is so simple wheras you have to think and make a more concious move I find when your capturing strategic points, thus imo going for points is bothersome

either way, please dont bring something as slow and tiresome as the World in Conflict mechanic...."sigh"

Is DoW 2 using the same resource method as the first game, or are they doing away with it for something else?

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Yup, bad design. Like I say- some people seem to enjoy bad design in games; I canot help that, they are still wrong.

According to who?

I dont see why having worker units can make a game bad.. I mean its an economy unit.. if those are destroyed you're finished.. I think its perfectly logical to have

Personally i like the idea of being able to build more Economy units like workers to be able to harvest/gather resources faster, in games without them, theres either usually no way or few ways to to increase resource acquiring, for example in normal DOW, you need to capture points which imo is a fine idea, however one youve done the upgrades and plopped the highest level outpost on top of a strategic point you cannot enhance its economical advantages, yet in a game with workers you can build more if you want faster economy and therefore streamline your economy to your own needs at your will.

hehe.. this is a good example of what starcraft copied

http://community.dawnofwar2.com/blogs/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/tyranid_jungle_hr.jpg

http://community.dawnofwar2.com/blogs/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/edited_final3.jpg

lmfao.

Those Blax_Hydralisks... >.>

Originally posted by SaTsuJiN
hehe.. this is a good example of what starcraft copied

http://community.dawnofwar2.com/blogs/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/tyranid_jungle_hr.jpg

http://community.dawnofwar2.com/blogs/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/edited_final3.jpg

And the Eldar

new video up

click for campain preview

this game should be great. the first dawn of war and its exspansions are the best rts game i've ever played.

blood ravens trailer

http://www.gametrailers.com/player/43428.html


multiplayer trailer

http://www.gametrailers.com/player/43666.html

Should be good, but I'm wondering about the base structures. Do we still get to build defensive guns etc or is it all auto managed? And how difficult will they be to destroy, given theres no barracks or other support structures to wipe out first?

Waiting for Chaos though disgust Wonder if demons will be classed as a seperate race this time hmm

No, you don't build things at your base, even in skirmish/multiplay. The Techmarine can build turrets, you can upgrade power points with generators, but you do not expand your base, you only upgrde the main building. It cuts out a lot of the busy work. A literally defensive strategy will be near impossible- because that is absolutely not what Dawn of War has ever been about; it is a map control game. You absolutely must get out there and hold points on the map.

http://au.pc.ign.com/dor/objects/850126/starcraft-2/videos/Starcraft_BRoll_XVid.html

Starcraft 2 looks kinda boring in comparison.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
No, you don't build things at your base, even in skirmish/multiplay. The Techmarine can build turrets, you can upgrade power points with generators, but you do not expand your base, you only upgrde the main building. It cuts out a lot of the busy work. A literally defensive strategy will be near impossible- because that is absolutely not what Dawn of War has ever been about; it is a map control game. You absolutely must get out there and hold points on the map.

so how do you get the new units now that you dont make the other buildings

The main building makes them:

"Once everyone is all set choosing a faction and a hero, you're ready to drop into battle. One neat thing is that in the game lobby you can't tell what factions and heroes the other side has chosen, so you go in a bit blind in that regards.

The key thing to know about the multiplayer in Dawn of War II, especially in how it compares to the original game, is that it is much more streamlined. For instance, there isn't traditional base building, per se. Each player has a stronghold in the rear area that you command to spew out new units and vehicles. However, there aren't any other support structures that you have to build; the stronghold takes care of everything when it comes to production. This lets you focus on commanding your squads and units on the battlefield. "

http://au.pc.ign.com/articles/938/938132p1.html

Hmm that brings another point, won't that slow down production? Let's say you want 3 squads of marines, 1 dreadnought and an upgrade for your commander. You'll have to wait ages for them to build, while you're losing units on the field as well. At least with barrack production you could build more than 1 to get more units built faster.

Lack of base building= Weak sauce for me. I've never liked games like that.

I'll buy Starcraft 2 instead.

edit- Well, I guess I'll get it anyway, simply for the sake of crushing MiST and his Chaos heathens under my Inquisitorial boot. And SC:II looks hella boring in that video, the absolute lack of music doesn't help.

I find it hard to see a lack of base building as anything other than an advance- base building brings, objectively, very little of value to the genre. The genre has beene xtremely stale for a long time, and the reason review sites are hyped is because there finally seems to be an advance being made.

Not that there is any Chaos yet.

Mist- things like Dreadnoughts are 'called in' via a seperate mechanic- not to mention a seperate resource, known as 'Zeal' for Space Marines.

I love that they added the tyranids finally. I look forward to playing everyone on here who gets it

Originally posted by Ushgarak
I find it hard to see a lack of base building as anything other than an advance- base building brings, objectively, very little of value to the genre. The genre has beene xtremely stale for a long time, and the reason review sites are hyped is because there finally seems to be an advance being made.


I disagree. From a competitive standpoint that's true. however, for just ****ing around base building is great. Building map sized walls out of buildings is hilarious.

I don't think "innovation" or change makes a game good, though. So it really is just about opinion. If Starcrat 2 was just Starcraft one but with better graphics, and then SC3 was just SC2 with better graphics, I'd bet it anyway not because it's Starcraft but because that's just how I like my games...

Innovation for the sake of innovation, no. Innovation to push a genre forwards- that is essential for video gaming as a whole, without whuch we'd still be stuck with the games of the early 80s, just with shinier graphics.

And what you call a 'competitive' viewpoint, I call a 'gameplay' viewpoint. If you want to mess around with building stuff, go plsy SIm City. Games like these have a different priority.

I don't want it to have a priority. And if they made a Sims game in a Starcraft or Warhammer environment I'd buy it, but they don't.

Are you familiar with Starcraft's UMS's?

Originally posted by Ushgarak
I find it hard to see a lack of base building as anything other than an advance- base building brings, objectively, very little of value to the genre. The genre has beene xtremely stale for a long time, and the reason review sites are hyped is because there finally seems to be an advance being made.

Not that there is any Chaos yet.

Mist- things like Dreadnoughts are 'called in' via a seperate mechanic- not to mention a seperate resource, known as 'Zeal' for Space Marines.

its no advance, simply a diffrent style of play. The base still excists and youll be upgrading it rather than actually building another building.


Which is a shame because their an incredible faction.

Of course it is an advance! How the heck you can deny that is beyond me. As has already been discussed in this section, DOW II is taking an entirely different look at the RTS genre, and if they've got it right it will be the biggest advance the genre has had in a decade. It's not just the base building- though stripping most of it away in multiplay and all of it in single is still an advance- it is the whole game.

And frankly, more fool you for not wanting it to have a different priority, FB. That different priority (the GAMEPLAY, especially with the combat and the strategic/tactical choices involved there) is actually what made these games any good, and it the centrepiece of what the games are about. NOT what buildings you plonk down, which has always just been a pacing mechanic and entirely unnecessary when looked at properly.

It sounds like an interesting idea anyways, I think it would make a game more tactical. Which could be a lot of fun.

I didn't play the first one though. Actually, I don't think I have played any RTS game since ...Battle Realms I guess.

The first one is great.

And I really like the idea of them pushing smaller more strategic battles, rather than huge hectic ones.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Of course it is an advance! How the heck you can deny that is beyond me. As has already been discussed in this section, DOW II is taking an entirely different look at the RTS genre, and if they've got it right it will be the biggest advance the genre has had in a decade. It's not just the base building- though stripping most of it away in multiplay and all of it in single is still an advance- it is the whole game.

And frankly, more fool you for not wanting it to have a different priority, FB. That different priority (the GAMEPLAY, especially with the combat and the strategic/tactical choices involved there) is actually what made these games any good, and it the centrepiece of what the games are about. NOT what buildings you plonk down, which has always just been a pacing mechanic and entirely unnecessary when looked at properly.

i thot it was obvious I was referring to no actual base building as an advance, as i said its just a style of play, base building is still very important in many strategy games, the fact you have no interest in it is neither here nor there. Although the game itself is an advance, the minus of large scale base building is not.

Base building is part of gameplay so your point is a little sketchy there. Base building can be important since in many strategy games your base is a fallback point if your soldiers are pushed back.

It;s not just me having no interest in it. It is about it being gameplay redundant. This is the concept people have to get their head around; base building is superficial, a pacing mechanic no longer needed. People who are just addicted two atching builgins a. build or b. blow up are... well, basically it is that attitude that holds back gameplay. An RTS game shouldn't feel in any way beholden to such superficial things. Relic are not just removing it for a 'different style' but as part of a fundamental advance of the entire genre.

So my point is not sketchy in the slightest. Meanwhile, those who have played the demonstration version confirm that the single building you get is hard to destroy and defended by turrets, so it is barely worth attacking unless you are late game. As ever, DoW is about map control.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
It;s not just me having no interest in it. It is about it being gameplay redundant. This is the concept people have to get their head around; base building is superficial, a pacing mechanic no longer needed. People who are just addicted two atching builgins a. build or b. blow up are... well, basically it is that attitude that holds back gameplay. An RTS game shouldn't feel in any way beholden to such superficial things. Relic are not just removing it for a 'different style' but as part of a fundamental advance of the entire genre.

So my point is not sketchy in the slightest. Meanwhile, those who have played the demonstration version confirm that the single building you get is hard to destroy and defended by turrets, so it is barely worth attacking unless you are late game. As ever, DoW is about map control.

ofc it is, you simply dont understand the enjoyment building a base can bring a person, if Age of empires 3 consisted of a single building you had to protect which built all your units it would be boring and not half as interesting, some games in the RTS genre work well with building a base, or an empire, if your one of those people who just rushes with units and is only intersted in units and as little base buildings thats fine...for you...

So really all it is, is a base? just like a base its hard to destroy etc etc, just like a base built completly by players, but some people like having the building aspect of choosing where they put their buildings, building placement can easily be just as strategical/tactical as using soldiers themselves and many would claim just as enjoyable, if you dont understand that then you likely have not played Supreme commander for instance.

i'm sort of on the fence about the base building...

i like tinkering with bases, placing everything just how i like it, setting up defensive turrets and so on...

but i am very intrigued by what they're doing with DOW2, so i'm willing to give it a shot...

Originally posted by Burning thought
ofc it is, you simply dont understand the enjoyment building a base can bring a person, if Age of empires 3 consisted of a single building you had to protect which built all your units it would be boring and not half as interesting, some games in the RTS genre work well with building a base, or an empire, if your one of those people who just rushes with units and is only intersted in units and as little base buildings thats fine...for you...

So really all it is, is a base? just like a base its hard to destroy etc etc, just like a base built completly by players, but some people like having the building aspect of choosing where they put their buildings, building placement can easily be just as strategical/tactical as using soldiers themselves and many would claim just as enjoyable, if you dont understand that then you likely have not played Supreme commander for instance.


Building placement as strategy is simply crap. In any case, that;s not what it is- it is a pacing structure disguised as strategy. If you have fallen for that- well, sorry. But it has nothing to do with good gameplay. And what is certainly true is that abusive building placement has buggered uip many a strategy game over time.

And yes I have played Supreme Commander. It is just one of many games that prove the poiunt- the only thing od any value that buildings broughtto the game was artificial pacing that is no longer needed.

If you are translating the removal of base building as making the game about 'just rushing with yuor forces' the... you seriousy need to step back and take a clearer look at the situation.


Raoul- well, they are pretty much staking their reputation on it. If they bugger it up then that is pretty much that. But if it works... well then... a lot of games are going to look stupid in comparison.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Building placement as strategy is simply crap. In any case, that;s not what it is- it is a pacing structure disguised as strategy. If you have fallen for that- well, sorry. But it has nothing to do with good gameplay. And what is certainly true is that abusive building placement has buggered uip many a strategy game over time.

And yes I have played Supreme Commander. It is just one of many games that prove the poiunt- the only thing od any value that buildings broughtto the game was artificial pacing that is no longer needed.

If you are translating the removal of base building as making the game about 'just rushing with yuor forces' the... you seriousy need to step back and take a clearer look at the situation.

tbh, i think there is an element of strategy involved in building placement, in a defensive sense anyways. given how strongly the enemy can attack your bases, the proper placement of turrets, reactors and unit building structures can mean the difference between spending two hours on a map and six.

is it a HUGE part of the strategy? no. is it a way of pacing? sure. but i don't think it can be completely disregarded as being just a pacing utility.

all of this, of course, could be made redundant by DOW's new mechanic, and i am looking forward to seeing it...





fingers crossed...

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Building placement as strategy is simply crap. In any case, that;s not what it is- it is a pacing structure disguised as strategy. If you have fallen for that- well, sorry. But it has nothing to do with good gameplay. And what is certainly true is that abusive building placement has buggered uip many a strategy game over time.

And yes I have played Supreme Commander. It is just one of many games that prove the poiunt- the only thing od any value that buildings broughtto the game was artificial pacing that is no longer needed.

If you are translating the removal of base building as making the game about 'just rushing with yuor forces' the... you seriousy need to step back and take a clearer look at the situation.


Raoul- well, they are pretty much staking their reputation on it. If they bugger it up then that is pretty much that. But if it works... well then... a lot of games are going to look stupid in comparison.

Simply crap? what a well thought out argument

no its not simply crap, the way you place buildings can make an incredible diffrence on gameplay, noobs building buildings in front of their base which should be behind for example can waste their time and end up losing even with superior forces, its also a way of stemming the tide of units, if you want to stop a peticulour unit being built because your using forces that are weak to that unit (i.e, your using Dreadnaughts so you want to stop your enemy building Anti vehichle infantry) you can destroy the building.

Also your thinking of the tactical side of hiding buildings, in DOWn 2, it seems that as soon as you have guns big enough you know exactley where to fire your weapons..the big single base structure, in games with base building you wouldnt necesserily have the first idea, it forces players to know their terrain and area, its another strategy factor that can be monumental, which is now thrown out the window for a more basic approach.

Ofcourse its needed, how would the system work without buildings? you would just gain X amount of power or something? as i said above its strategic usage of buildings that you could trick your opponent, in Supreme commander your building placement was integral, if you didnt build any buildings and your commander built everything, fired nuclear weapons, did everything by itself...then you wouldnt have the factor of a base, you wouldnt get enjoyment out of seeing hordes dieing before your well laid out defences etc etc

no i was remarking that thats the kind of player you remind me of, a rusher who doesnt give a damn about weapons or defences, just asl ong as he can spam units, the kind of person who thinks "i dont want to w8 until higher tier, i want to be able to spam the best units now!"

Buildings can be important in defence as well, not everyone is an offencive player, some like defensive play, a base is one of the best ways to do it.

Yeah but what Ush has been mentioning is that in the Warhammer 40k universe, defensive gaming is out the window because the whole thing is focused on war, fighting, conquest and being the aggressor. Defensive gaming might work for other games but for DoW there's no such thing as 'defending'.

Which is ironic considering the majority of my working strategies on DOW battlenet is turtiling...

But hell, if you make that point only in regard to DOW, fine. But to say that building placemet isn't a strategy at all, or is a poor one, is utter nonsense. In Starcraft 1 pro-Starcraft players used supply depots and high HP buildings as a form of makeshift barricade to protect turrets and important structures from melee attacks. The strategy was so good and popular that Blizzard actually incorporated it into the game. Supply depots in SC2 can sink into the ground to act as a type of gate, which can be used to protect your units/buldings, etc.

That's just one example. Using buildings that can fly as decoys, making ten Hatcheries to spawn 30 units in 10 seconds (An integral part of Zerg strategy), etc. And that's just Starcraft. Solid, professional strategies have been created that revolve around base building in Starcraft, Warcraft (go figure), Battle for Middle Earth, Command and Conquer... To say that base building as a whole is a redundant factor that isn't nescesarry is nonsensical.

First of all, if you find turtling works in DoW then you are not playing it against proper opponents. Get the AI mod or play against decent humans. But, absolutely and 100% for certaiun, turtling DOES NOT WORK in DoW. It is an appalling strategy as it means you do not get the resources you need, tand defensive measures in DoW are FAR less powerful than in Starcraft or Command and Conquer. You turtle in DoW, you will lose.

And honestly, I do find some of the arguments you guys are using as... exceptionally self-delusional. It makes me worry. You are stuck in such circular reasoning- saying something is neded just because it is there. FB's example of using ten hatcheiries to spawn lots of units and saying that is some sort of strategic element is just... too breathtakingly silly for words. As is the concept of tiny irrelevancies to the strategic make-up of a game like 'using flying buildings as decoys'. And you want to use the term 'professional' as some sort of adjective that strengths your argument? That means nothing- people can make use of pointless mechanics for money all they like. They are still pointless.

Raoul- my ire is less aimed at you. My point would be- if you can remove it and the game still works, hence showing a certain redundancy... what actually was the point in the first place? And were building orders, building placement, building arrangement... was all that actually enhancing the game, or getting in the darn way? I submit the latter. Of couse, if they remove it and it doesn't work at all, then they've shot themselves in the foot.

You guys have got to learn to look at the basic ways games work and what mechanics within the game actually achieve- and what they cock up. What you seem to be doing is simply trying to list things buildings can do in a game. That's... irrelevant. Inidividual examples of what you find cool are useless. Answers have to be far more fundamental than that. Buildings are NOT in RTS games to prive any form of strategy in the way you suggest. They are there to slow down and codify the time when you can produce certain units or upgrades. That is honestly ALL they are for. The rest just happens to spin off from that but in doing so tends to cock up games immensly, making them all about fiddly build orders and getting away from what RTS games are really meant to be about- tactical/strategic fighting- and it turnsd a hell of a lot of people off in the process. By far the most aggravating part of Starcraft was having to conform to certain notions of build ordering to get anywhere- it iis horrible, horrible stuff and is part of a massive issue RTS games have, part of why I barely touch them any more.

Using buildinga as barricades is appalling. ABSOLUTELY that kind of thing is part of the problem- a total misuse of the intention behind them. This is something I have the most utter contempt for, and that you would use it to try and justify the point... well. I am certainly never going to be interested in your opinion of what makes a game any good ever, ever again, because that is monstrous.

Sorry, but if you cannot see that building 'placement', specifically, is not a viable means of providing strategy within a game... then you have not got a proper perspective on game making. What you certainly have to do is reverse the perspective and imagine how games might have been if there had never been any base building, and seriously try an consider what benefits any game would have had by trying to put it in. The answer being- virtually none.

But, thank Christ, Relic DOES. And in the end all they might end up proving is that their ideas don't work- but someine is trying, and that can only be a good thing.

No offence, Ush, but you don't think you're being a tad over the top? granted, using buildings as barricades and natural barriers is a bit ridiculous. on the other hand, on certain maps on the harder difficulties, proper turret placement can mean the difference between being overrun, and defending a part of the map that you really need to defend.

that, and being able to stick a barracks/vehicle building thingy on the front lines so you can keep your forces at a decent strength, is pretty handy imo...

sure, its a little cheap, but if DOW 2 does away with that, and doesn't give a good alternative for replacing your forces (and you're basically stuck with a set number), a lot of people are going to have major trouble with a lot of the levels.

now, i personally don't mind having a set number of troops. it means i work harder and try to use my brain rather than just throwing troops at the enemy until they're overrun (which is kind of ironic, given how little the people in the games seem to value life), but at the same time, a lot of people will enjoy the games for the pure spectacle of the bloody battles. lots of reinforcing, lots of carnage and death.

if those people end up being short-changed by this game, i don't think that's entirely fair.

if they find a way to make reinforcing and upgrading plausible without the need for almost a dozen buildings, then i'm all for it...

of course, I'm assuming that taking away base building severely hinders the ability to reinforce one's troops (unless they just have a separate command for that). if i'm wrong, my bad.

It does have a means of troop replenishment in the field even in single player (where you have no base buildings at all). They have even not fallen for the old persistency problem of losing any forces at all being campaign fatal (like in Fire Emblem) by making your squad leaders effectively invulnerable (they come back after the mission is done or are revived by other squad leaders; you only lose when all the leaders are downed). In multiplayer, you can rebuild the lost squads and call in forces to your current location. And frankly, the battles in DOWII look awesome!

Multiplayer vid link:

http://www.thq-games.com/uk/thqtv/index/2507

If I am over the top at all it is only frustration at how.. little thought many punters put into the whole concept of game desgn and how to improve a genre. It depresses me greatly.

Turret placement, specifically- ok, fine. That's perfectly reasonable strategy, nothing to do with pacing and, incidentally, that's still in DOW II, though only if you choose a turret-building leader for your force (as, for example, tte hechmarine can do).

Originally posted by Ushgarak
It does have a means of troop replenishment in the field even in single player (where you have no base buildings at all). They have even not fallen for the old persistency problem of losing any forces at all being campaign fatal (like in Fire Emblem) by making your squad leaders effectively invulnerable (they come back after the mission is done or are revived by other squad leaders; you only lose when all the leaders are downed). In multiplayer, you can rebuild the lost squads and call in forces to your current location.

If I am over the top at all it is only frustration at how.. little thought many punters put into the whole concept of game desgn and how to improve a genre. It depresses me greatly.

Turret placement, specifically- ok, fine. That's perfectly reasonable strategy, nothing to do with pacing and, incidentally, that's still in DOW II, though only if you choose a turret-building leader for your force (as, for example, tte hechmarine can do).

ah, ok... that all sounds perfectly reasonable...

Check the link I edited in- shows the HQs for each faction building units, and also the building bits they have retained- improving a power point with power generators, and building a turret. Also shows drop pods landing, whuch carry reinforcements.

See, it is not just about removing base building just for the heck of it. They've kept the base mechanics that actually work and contribute to the game- they have only removed the redundant bits.

I honestly cannot make any analysis at all of the value of buildings that produce better units than another building, or buildings that oinly do tech researches, or supply buildings. The first two are just repating what could be done elsewhere- pointless runaround pacing- and the third... well, if you cannot tell that supply buildings are pacing then there are real issues. They'd be the first ting I got rid of in any RTS game. If you cannot make the mechanics of how much troops cost work well enough to keep control of what people build, then you've cocked your game up. Forcing people to build supply depots is an admisison of game design failure. They do nothing other than slow the game down.

What about tanks, do they get dropped in or are they built on-ground?

That's not yet clear. Dreadnoughts apparently get dropped in but from what can be told so far tanks get built at the base.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Check the link I edited in- shows the HQs for each faction building units, and also the building bits they have retained- improving a power point with power generators, and building a turret. Also shows drop pods landing, whuch carry reinforcements.

See, it is not just about removing base building just for the heck of it. They've kept the base mechanics that actually work and contribute to the game- they have only removed the redundant bits.

I honestly cannot make any analysis at all of the value of buildings that produce better units than another building, or buildings that oinly do tech researches, or supply buildings. The first two are just repating what could be done elsewhere- pointless runaround pacing- and the third... well, if you cannot tell that supply buildings are pacing then there are real issues. They'd be the first ting I got rid of in any RTS game. If you cannot make the mechanics of how much troops cost work well enough to keep control of what people build, then you've cocked your game up. Forcing people to build supply depots is an admisison of game design failure. They do nothing other than slow the game down.

damn, that looks gorgeous...

and yeah, it looks more streamlined than before, which can only be a good thing imo... it looks like the game puts more emphasis on capturing and holding control points, relics and critical locations than its predecessors too, unless i misunderstood parts of the vid...

i am so going to have to buy a new pc just to play this game...

Taking and holding is indeed the emphasis- though I think it was in Company of Heroes they perfected that from DoW original. In fact, rather a lot of DoWII is improvements on CoH- CoH got a LOT of criticial praise. Certainly the entire fire suppression system (you pin troops with heavy fire on the flanks and move in with assault troops, that kind of thing) is entirely from CoH. Though now it is all with sci-fi over-the-top awesomness!

As it looks, there is absolutely no point in DOWII of doing anything other than getting out there and holding points... because it's very clear that there is little to do in your base!

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Taking and holding is indeed the emphasis- though I think it was in Company of Heroes they perfected that from DoW original. In fact, rather a lot of DoWII is improvements on CoH- CoH got a LOT of criticial praise. Certainly the entire fire suppression system (you pin troops with heavy fire on the flanks and move in with assault troops, that kind of thing) is entirely from CoH. Though now it is all with sci-fi over-the-top awesomness!

As it looks, there is absplutely no point in DOWII of doing anything other than getting out there and holding points... because it's very clear that there is little to do in your base!



yeah, exactly... i need to go back and play COH... i was halfway through the first one when i get the DOW boxset for my bday, and poor COH hasn't seen the light of day since...

So in the end, this whole "nothing to do in your base" is reducing players options....great...

Ush your problem seems to be you come off as a guy who simply doesnt like base building, youve given no examples of how it slows down games yet the rest of us have given you plenty of examples where base building is more than just pacing, placement of buildings can create strategies all by themselves, if you dont like base building dont play games with it, go and play World in conflict or something, but wailing about how base building is a terrible mechanic and giving no real reasons rather than constantly repeating how bad we are for enjoying it just makes you look ridiculous.

how many "of war" games can there be?

http://au.pc.ign.com/dor/objects/14243516/warhammer-40000-dawn-of-war-ii/videos/dow2_tyranids_010809.html

Holy freakin' swarm! shock

Originally posted by Burning thought
So in the end, this whole "nothing to do in your base" is reducing players options....great...

Ush your problem seems to be you come off as a guy who simply doesnt like base building, youve given no examples of how it slows down games yet the rest of us have given you plenty of examples where base building is more than just pacing, placement of buildings can create strategies all by themselves, if you dont like base building dont play games with it, go and play World in conflict or something, but wailing about how base building is a terrible mechanic and giving no real reasons rather than constantly repeating how bad we are for enjoying it just makes you look ridiculous.

You cannot see how base building slows down gameplay?

I cannot even be bothered to argue with people that cannot recognise basic principles.- equally so those who think abusive use of buildings outside their intended use has anything to do with improving gameplay. Such views do make me despair for gaming though, as they are the views of people tha ttend to wreck games. I really don't care if people with such views find me ridiculous, because they shown they have no respectable critical faculty with which to make such a declaration worthwhile.

Beta of this starts very soon for those who own Soulstorm; a week later for others.

It's unclear if that is what one player can produce, or if it is a three player coalition, or if it is a campaign-based event unavailable to players- so don't assume too much.

Remember this is a relatively small scale game.

Haha, imagine multiplayer with everyone playing Tyranid swarms, that would be awesome.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
It's unclear if that is what one player can produce, or if it is a three player coalition, or if it is a campaign-based event unavailable to players- so don't assume too much.

Remember this is a relatively small scale game.

party pooper. uhuh

Well it still looks awesome! I just worry people will complain when it comes out that the vids were somehow misleading.

Look at this this way. The supply limit is a hundred, and a Marine takes up fully five of that. That means 20 Marines would make up the maximum possible army a Space Martine player can have.

Now, if one single Tyrannid player can produce as many units as were in that trailer... well, those Marines are going to have to be freaking lethal!!! Not actually impossible, actually- but Relic says this game is balanced (theoretically) for 3 vs 3 battles instead of duels, so that's why there is speculaton it is a three player horde.

Each marine takes up 5 supply units, or each marine squad?

They used to take up two...

*sighs* That sucks.

Originally posted by BackFire
Each marine takes up 5 supply units, or each marine squad?

Each marine singular. DOWII is like Company of Heroes; supply points are by person, not squad.

So that is literally 20 marines forming an army. Do remember they have made Marines very powerful this time. All other armies in multiplayer, as it stands, start off with 8 units and a commander- the Marines start with 3. And that's three scouts, not even full marines.

Terminators cost a whopping eight supply each I understand. As I say, DOWII is on a much smaller scale. Even one tank in a battle is a very big deal.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Each marine singular. DOWII is like Company of Heroes; supply points are by person, not squad.

So that is literally 20 marines is an army. Do remember they have made Marines very powerful this time. All other armies in multiplayer, as it stands, start off with 8 units and a commander- the Marines start with 3. And that's three scouts, not even full marines.

Terminators cost a whopping eight supply each I understand. As I say, DOWII is on a much smaller scale. Even one tank in a battle is a very big deal.

they're going to have to be insanely uber to balance that out...

Hence the speculation that that Tyrannid swarm is not that produced by a single player, see? Else it really might well be totally ridiculous if a few Marines can wipe it.

But yes, they've taken their inspiration from the novels mostly, where Marines are very very dangerous indeed; more like Jedi than just elite soldiers. It's certainly nothing close to the expendable units of thei first game.

Except for the Tyrannids. In DOWII there is a veterancy system where your units improve as they score kills, so conserving units is a big deal- but the basic Tyrannid units do NOT do this, so they are absolutely expenable.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Hence the speculation that that Tyrannid swarm is not that produced by a single player, see? Else it really might well be totally ridiculous if a few Marines can wipe it.

But yes, they've taken their inspiration from the novels mostly, where Marines are very very dangerous indeed; more like Jedi than just elite soldiers. It's certainly nothing close to the expendable units of thei first game.

Except for the Tryannids. In DOWII there is a veterancy system where your units improve as they score kills, so conserving units is a big deal- but the basic Tyrannid units do NOT do this, so they are absolutely expenable.

i won't mind if its a 3-player swarm. either way, i'm still one player. one very brown-panted player.

I see then why buildings don't matter. This isn't tje type of RTS where building individual structures would be plausible.

Incidentally, Veterancy systems are a question mark to me, as to my mind they just mean the winning player tends to gain even more of an advantage and so the whole map might be decided by who wins the firat firefight.

But then persistent unit mechanics in campaigns are something I don't like either (see, my review on Fire Emblem for a full discussion on this), but Relic have done it in a way that works, so maybe this will work out too. We'll see.

Originally posted by Final Blaxican
I see then why buildings don't matter. This isn't tje type of RTS where building individual structures would be plausible.

Having removed buildings I think they designed the game that way, yes.

In fact, what this all stems from is that Company of Heroes received very high critical scores and praise, but the most praise went to the misisons that had little or no bases in- the misisons about good tactical play, taking care of your men, and use of suppression fire and cover. So now they's how they are trying to make the whole thing work

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Having removed bukdings I think they designed the game that way, yes.

In fact, what tis all stems from is that Company of Heroes received very high critical scorea and praise, but the most praise went to the misisons that had little or no bases in- the misisons about good tactical play, taking care of your men, and use of suppression fire and cover. So now they's how they are trying to make the whole thing work

well if its any way as good as company of heroes, it'll be a damn fine game...

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Having removed buildings I think they designed the game that way, yes.


Smartass.

Didn't actually mean it like that! I meant that, having removed buildings, they probably then saw that building the game this way was practical in a way that it was not in a traditional RTS structure.

I know what you meant I was just yankin your chain.

... I'm not a toilet...

i do wonder, though, any word on new units for the established factions? space marines, imperial guard and so on? i'm sure they'll have something, but i haven't heard of any...

i always found the h2h terminators to be not my cup of tea, so getting something new would be cool...

As far as factions themselves I do wonder if the IG will be in it. IMO Relic seems to be taking the "Less is better" approach.

Originally posted by Final Blaxican
As far as factions themselves I do wonder if the IG will be in it. IMO Relic seems to be taking the "Less is better" approach.

i hadn't even thought of that...

they always seemed a very... i dunno, expendable faction... in the sense that you'd happily send your soldiers off to die while waiting to build your leman russ or baneblade tanks... their infantry, even those trollish things, just didnt seem that useful...

Yeah IG infantry has always sucked, they just have the best vehicles and base defense in the game.

I don't think that will fly in this one though; Micro managing seems to be a lot more important.

Following a gameplay preview in London I think a full unit list is pretty much available now actually- I'll go look for it.

No IG at release, no- no Chaos either. But Chaos are so popular (including with the lead game designer!), and IG so suited to the kind of small arms actions this game deals with (digging in, using cover, having the odd big tank around), that their later release seems inevitable. They have said it will have downloadable content created for it.

Originally posted by Final Blaxican
Yeah IG infantry has always sucked, they just have the best vehicles and base defense in the game.

I don't think that will fly in this one though; Micro managing seems to be a lot more important.

mhmm

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Following a gameplay preview in London I think a full unit list is pretty much available now actually- I'll go look for it.

No IG at release, no- no Chaos either. But Chaos are so popular (incouding with the lead game designer!), and IG so suited to the kind of small arms actions this game deals with (digging in, using cover, having the odd big tank around), that their later release seems inevitable. They have said it will have downloadable content created for it.

oh, well thats a relief... i dunno, i never got what the big deal was with chaos... i mean, sure, some of their high end guys are great, but i never felt particularly drawn to them...

any chance of a link to the unit list please?

No chaos at opening?

So who will be the default races? Space Marines, Eldar, and Tyranid?

And Orks.

Btw, some early reviews are coming in now. Two points of criticism are:

1. Single player campaign missions are apparently somewhat repetitive

2. Rather strangely... multiplayer is apparently either 1 vs 1 or 3 vs 3. Now, I knew they were going for 3 vs 3 as the default, but... not having 2 v 2 at all just seems weird.

hmm so far my only quibs are no chaos (my fave faction), and overall, the reduction of the number of factions.

however i have vaslty more good points to say about it such as how theyve seemed ot make it more realistic and true to life for Warhammer, for example Space marines being small in number but extremely powerful and well trained soldiers....i didnt like seeing space marines defeated by a group or two of Guardsmen in the previous games.

The leveling system and the feeling that your increasing the power of your marines while playing the campaign (and otherise if theres a similiar form in multiplayer).

Originally posted by Ushgarak
And Orks.

Btw, some early reviews are coming in now. Two points of criticism are:

1. Single player campaign missions are apparently somewhat repetitive

2. Rather strangely... multiplayer is apparently either 1 vs 1 or 3 vs 3. Now, I knew they were going for 3 vs 3 as the default, but... not having 2 v 2 at all just seems weird.

So then I'm assuming then that the mutliplayer is like a form of matchmaking, as in, you can't make your own servers? because if there's "slots" like in Starcraft and Battle for Middle Earth then they can't really force that on you.

Found the unit list. This is from someone who played the London preivew- I dunno how much this will differ from release.


---

At the beginning of a game you start with your commander and a basic unit.

Space marines: Your commander + 3 scouts
Tyranids: your commander + 8 hormagaunts
Eldar: Your commander + 8 guardians
Orks: Your commander + 8 SLUGGA BOYZ


Tyranids

The tyranids are odd fish. Unlike every other faction only their synapse units gain vet - the liddle hormagaunts and termagants don't have XP bars. This to me suggests a British-style "synapse units give out stronger synapse" style deal, but I have no objective evidence for this assertion. They are extremely cheap - 270 req per early game unit - and here are your tiers and possible build options.

Tier 1: Ripper swarms (240 req), Termagants (270 req), Hormagaunts (270 req), Tyranid Warriors (400 req + 10-40 power (can't remember)

Tier 2: Lictors (~350 requisition, 45 power) and Zoanthrope (300-400 req, ~90 power)

Tier 3: Carnifex (~500 req 200 power), Ravener Brood (400 req 75 power (very rough figures))


Tyranid heroes.

Hive Tyrant;

The hive Tyrant is noticably slow in comparison to the other two heroes. He does have a lot of health, however, and seems to kick the crap out of anything he gets next to. I'll make a note about how his wargear works in another section, as the system is a little confusing, but suffice to say he has stuff you'd expect - extended carapace, psychic scream, bioplasma etc. He seems a strong melee tank commander with decent support powers, including a pheromone cloud that automatically heals and reinforces tyranid units inside.

Ravener;

He's very nasty. He's most analogous to the warp spider, but he can lay tunnels. And these tunnels can be used by your allies. I'll describe how wide the range of allied behaviour is later on, but suffice to say the teamwork opportunities here are amazing. He has a ranged attack which can be upgraded to ravage vehicles, and a melee splash attack if you feel like it. He seems like a high damage hit and run commander with some nice utility worked in.

The Lictor;

An odd fish, even more so than the other two. He obviously has the glorious flesh hooks (which to me feel a little cheesy, as you can simply yank an enemy commander over to your assembled forces and compel a retreat. If they don't retreat the commander will simply be torn to shreds. I think it might be nerfed a lil'), but he also possesses infiltration (which drains his energy while in use, unless you get the chameleon scales wargear). He has a bizarre option called Loner which gives him increased damage when he's not near any of your units, making him quite an enjoyably vicious commander killer. His description as "Ambush" seems to be pretty fair, as in a sustained fight he seems to suffer a little. Shares many support powers with the other two.



ORKZ

I will put my cards on the table. The orkz are by far the most flavoursome army in the game at the moment. Everything about them is funny, from the evil grot eyes staring out of their base turrets to your gretching battle announcer imparting pearls of wisdom such as "Boss! Dey've blown the... the... FING up!!!!". They are also gleefully fun to play with.

Their tiers + units:

Tier 1: Shoota boyz (270 req), slugga boyz (270 req), Stikkbommaz (310 req, 10 power - enough to make them a slightly delayed unit) and STORMBOYZ (300-400 req, 20-40 power)

Tier 2: Trukk (not sure on req, 45-90 power) and Loota Boyz
Tier 3: Nob Squad (400 req 110 power) and LOOTED TANK (310 req, 100-150 power)


The three heroes were:

The Kommando

The Kommando is a strong ranged infiltrator. He had a selection of amusing grenades, some unlocked by upgrading and stun grenades by default. The stun grenades seem especially insane early game, guaranteeing total annihilation of weak squads like guardians by your trusty boyz. He can summon kommandoz onto the battlefield at the cost of waagh and can be upgrade to a speshul knife, a close-combat shotgun or a (and i'm not making this up) a triple-barrelled scatter rokkit-launcher. The last one seemed to kill infantry as easily as it killed buildings and vehicles - very orky!

The Warboss

I didn't get to try him, but he has abilities such as allowing the units around him to reinforce and heal, summon extra boyz, that kind of thing. He's apparently a strong melee tank type hero in the vein of the hive tyrant.

The Mek

He's somehwat like the kommando in that he's ranged (one of his upgrades is the ingeniously named "deff gun", which we are informed is strong against infantry due to killing them) but he can drop turrets and healing/reinforcement points. Turrets are strong, and reinforcement points are extremely useful as both you and your allies can use them as retreat points. The teamplay element is very very strong in this game!




Eldar

And now we come to the Pointy-eared naughties, the Eldar. Just like in the original Dow, they seem a faction that rewards micro over and above the others. They are fragile and fast, and seem to do very decent damage.

Units and Tiers

Tier 1: Guardians (270 req), Howling Banshees (400-odd req, small power requirement), Shuriken cannon teams (240 req maybe?) and Warp Spiders (400 req, 45-100 power)

Tier 2: , Falcon Grav-tanks (300-400 req, 100-130 power) Wraithlord (400 req, 110 power?)

Tier 3: Avatar (500 req, 200 power), D-cannon platforms (240-300 req, some power) and Fire Prisms (400 req, 200 power maybe?)


Eldar Heroes;

Warlock:

I didn't get to play with him much, but he feels like a combat farseer. He shares eldritch storm with her, but also possesses conceal (an ability cast on a friendly unit) and seems to have a reasonably strong ranged attack.

Warp Spider:

Now this fellow is nasty. He has some nifty togglable wargear, including some energy-draining heavy guage spinner fibre that does extra damage, and his most important ability; to teleport other squads with him when he jumps, including allied units. This means that you can use your commander to teleport your allied tyranids' carnifex right into somebody's big blob of ranged units or what have you.

Farseer:

Didn't play her, but she seemed a reasonably strong melee character with very disruptive psychic abilities. Quite vulnerable though.






Space Marines

The emperor's finest are indeed pretty fine in multiplayer; hard to kill, damaging and pretty simple to use.

Tier 1: Tactical Squad (500 req), Devastator heavy bolter squad (370 req, spawns what is effectively a "weapons team" from what I remember - has to be setup), scouts (270-350 req), assault marines (500 req + 45 power I think, could be very wrong on cost)

Tier 2: Razorback (300 req, 45-50 power), Devastator Plasma Cannon squad (not sure on cost)

Tier 3: Predator (400-500 req, 110 power)

(The Dreadnought gets called in)


Force Commander:

Melee tank hero, no surprises here. Didn't use him myself, can't really comment beyond that.

Tech Marine

Quite damaging ranged support hero. He can be upgraded with several different weapons depending on role (a plasma gun and 2 different master-crafted bolters), the bolters either giving him a suppressing shot or boosting the ranged damage of nearby infantry when the ability is activated. The turrets take up 5 pop cap, cost 200 req and 30 power and absolutely ravage infantry. They have a limited arc of fire that cannot be changed, but if you can get people in front of them they will pay for themselves and more. His healing and reinforcing structure also acts as a retreat point, has a similar cost, and fully affects your allies. It is so good I almost thought it encroached on the apothecary's territory.


Apothecary

Didn't use him, so can't really say

Originally posted by Final Blaxican
So then I'm assuming then that the mutliplayer is like a form of matchmaking, as in, you can't make your own servers? because if there's "slots" like in Starcraft and Battle for Middle Earth then they can't really force that on you.

I have no idea how that works- I'll be joining the beta (as I own Soulstorm) so I'll let you know as soon as.

But the maps have been designed that way, is the thing...

Originally posted by Ushgarak
I have no idea how that works- I'll be joining the beta (as I own Soulstorm) so I'll let you know as soon as.

But the maps have been designed that way, is the thing...

i own soulstorm too... we can sign up for the beta?

It's via Steam- details coming soon as to how to register your Soulstorm copy to it.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
It's via Steam- details coming soon as to how to register your Soulstorm copy to it.

i have a steam account too... it's all coming together... like an A-Team plan... mhmm

also, thx for posting the unit list... looks interesting...

The fact Terminators were not on the unit list makes it obvious that there is more units still not 100% known or used

also Ush when you said "dreadnought gets called in " is that free (no cost by it) and is it chosen by the player, the way you typed it, makes me wonder if it simply comes in as a special super unit kind of thing.

This is true. The dreadnought was not on the list either, and I know that gets drop-podded in; other races may have equivalents.

As far as I know, each race has a unique resource in addition to Req and Power. The Space Marine one is called 'Zeal' and is gained by killing units or taking casualties. It is used to buy dreadnoughts and I vaguely remember hearing that maybe it does Terminators too.

hm intreiging, I like the drop pods idea, it sounds like the fact youve got a single base may not actually reduce the speed of acquiring units since you can drop them in.

Btw, I know the Ork resoruce is Waaaaagh! and the Tyrannid one is Biomass. No idea on the Eldar.

They MAY all be acquired the same way- I have no info there.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Each marine singular. DOWII is like Company of Heroes; supply points are by person, not squad.

So that is literally 20 marines forming an army. Do remember they have made Marines very powerful this time. All other armies in multiplayer, as it stands, start off with 8 units and a commander- the Marines start with 3. And that's three scouts, not even full marines.

Terminators cost a whopping eight supply each I understand. As I say, DOWII is on a much smaller scale. Even one tank in a battle is a very big deal.

That sounds alright to me. Small scale battles actually increase the strategy involved, as it makes it not ridiculous to try and micromanage each unit and use special abilities one at a time rather than freaking out and clicking all the marines and having them all use their ability at one time thus wasting it for all but one.

I'm glad that the space marines are powerful, they should be, they look badass.

http://community.dawnofwar2.com/blogs/?p=453

Yup, Terminators deep strike...


And I agree, BF, I quite like the smaller scale idea. it might be a bit of an all or nothing affair with the Marines though- if you cock up and lose a squad you could lose the game all in one go, I fear.

I wouldn't worry, if it's too weird or if it doesn't work they'll patch it and change it. I remember the first Dawn of War went through some pretty drastic changes with patches.

Have they announced which races will be available from the start?

So whats the games release? on Amazon and Play.com it seems they are expecting it to be late Feb?

Think that's accurate.

Yup- beta starts on the 21st, release a month later seems practical.

Yes, all races I mentioned above are available from the start. Others- soon. Ish.

Yes indeed patching will help. But the lack of 2v2 maps is harder to deal with- and it's a shame if they have indeed cocked up the single player campaign, seeing how much they went on about it. Still waiting to see what SCII can come up with there.

Going from just the gameplay videos, SCII looks like SCI with better graphics and new units is all, which is fine for me personally as Starcraft is my favorite RTS of all time. But, I think that DoWII will beat it out, at least they're doing something different.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Yup- beta starts on the 21st, release a month later seems practical.

Yes, all races I mentioned above are available from the start. Others- soon. Ish.

Yes indeed patching will help. But the lack of 2v2 maps is harder to deal with- and it's a shame if they have indeed cocked up the single player campaign, seeing how much they went on about it. Still waiting to see what SCII can come up with there.

So those four races you mentioned? I was hoping for the Chaos Marines, they were my favorite.

Blizzard do say they have big plans for SCII single player. But I agree, multiplayer SCII just looks like the same thing again but shinier, which is why I have been more interested in DoWII.

But if they've messed it up, I'll happily admit that.

just installed dawn of war and winter assault on my laptop (not easy with vista, so now i have all four installed). reactivated my steam account.

need to get on to that beta...

Originally posted by Final Blaxican
Going from just the gameplay videos, SCII looks like SCI with better graphics and new units is all, which is fine for me personally as Starcraft is my favorite RTS of all time. But, I think that DoWII will beat it out, at least they're doing something different.

hm I dont think so dude (in the "looks the same with SC1 with better graphics" bit, whether or not it beats DoW2 I dont mind ,ill be gettin both ), I mean it has a load of new mechanics such as super units (Thor, mothership) and last time I heard the mothership may have regained its cool abilities but balanced in a diffrent way but I dont know if thats official.

But theres tonnes of cool mechanics, such as the blinklike teleport of the Dark dragoon things, the interesting use of Nydus canales that burst out of the ground, Pylon teleportation etc etc

other interesting mechanics that are more minor like customisaton (choosing area pulse lasers on Battlecruiser or Yamato single shot blast) combined with simply cool additions like double build cues for Terrans (afaik)

Yeah but like I said it's just nicer graphics with new units... The actual game mechanics themselves don't look different it's just new units with new abilities and old units revamped with new abilities.

But to be fair DOW 2 is not vastly diffrent, its very very similiar to Company of heroes now, so the mechanics of DOW 2 are more new to the DOW series, not gaming in general because Company of heroes has most of the newer things.

ofc mechanics in all sequels are often the same, I mean to be fair if you changed Starcraft too much, it may as well be another game entirely.

I agree. Hence it doesn't bother me.

Matter of fact I just won a 3v3 match.

I nuked my own base and destroyed a fleet of carriers

http://au.pc.ign.com/dor/objects/14243516/warhammer-40000-dawn-of-war-ii/videos/ces2009sync_dow2_com_010809.html

This seems to answer a few questions, and looks fun as hell.

Originally posted by Burning thought
But to be fair DOW 2 is not vastly diffrent

Err...

Yes it is, very considerably. It might have the same suppression fire/cover mechanics as COH but it's a very great change from both games.

SCII looks consoderably mroe similar to SCI. Just naming new units doesn't change that.

How is it diffrent?

So far apart from the singel actual base building and war gear system (although that can still be in a way attirbuted to outfitting your soldiers on the battlefield in COH) DOW 2 looks very very alike to COH, I mean it has the suprression/cover mechanics, it looks like its just COH only with DOW skins and a improved engine graphically, but in COH you could break objects in the terrain with tanks and vehichles, you could cover etc, so ive not seen anything truly remarkably diffrent in the gameplay itself.

DoW 2 is different to DoW. SC2 is not different to SC.


That massive Tyranid swarm could be just 1 person, it looks like their basic units die pretty easily and that was only against Orks, Space Marines would probably chew through them all.

Originally posted by Burning thought
How is it diffrent?

So far apart from the singel actual base building and war gear system (although that can still be in a way attirbuted to outfitting your soldiers on the battlefield in COH) DOW 2 looks very very alike to COH, I mean it has the suprression/cover mechanics, it looks like its just COH only with DOW skins and a improved engine graphically, but in COH you could break objects in the terrain with tanks and vehichles, you could cover etc, so ive not seen anything truly remarkably diffrent in the gameplay itself.

Just go re-read the thread; the frankly vast differences in the entire base game mechanic have been made clear.

Originally posted by Burning thought
DOW 2 is not massively innovative

That's simply either ignorance or a ile. How you can say that after the massive changes in the whoile base of the game is beyond me. Frankly you look ludicrous with such a claim.

Originally posted by Burning thought
DOW 2 is not massively innovative just like SC 2 is not likely going to be. SC2 isnt going to be innovative, because everything "new" in SC2 was hashed from warhammer 40k rts..

I didnt read what new shits going into DoW2.. but I'm sure they've got some good stuff up their sleeves

Originally posted by Ushgarak
That's simply either ignorance or a ile. How you can say that after the massive changes in the whoile base of the game is beyond me. Frankly you look ludicrous with such a claim.

Yet youve yet to list some, what massive changes?

its just COH in a new lick of paint

The choosing a hero system at the beginning is pretty much choosing a Doctorine in COH

the cover mechanic is snatched from COH

the fact bases are smaller are from COH (altho now its just one building)

I mean whats actually new?

I agree, to an extent. DOWII isn't actually innovative because it's not doing something that RTS's haven't done before.

However, it's certainly innovative in it's own series, in that it's much more different than it's prequel and it's sister expansions.

oh yes I agree to that, its certain very diffrent to its own series, but thats sort of dubbed down a little in impressiveness by the fact COH is made by the same people.

Originally posted by Burning thought
Yet youve yet to list some, what massive changes?

its just COH in a new lick of paint

The choosing a hero system at the beginning is pretty much choosing a Doctorine in COH

the cover mechanic is snatched from COH

the fact bases are smaller are from COH (altho now its just one building)

I mean whats actually new?

Good Lord, I cannot believe someone could be like this... will yuo go read the darn thread?

The removal of a base building mechanic is a MASSIVE change and has completely altered the whole game from the ground up. If you cannot see that you are blind. It is NOTHING LIKE COH's base mechanic- not one tiny bit.

The game has been completely refocussed on a smaller scale and, again, rebuilt from the ground up on that basis.

It is also designed with an entirely different speed in mind. No build orders, no massing of enromous forces, no massive queues- instead, games designed to be over in 15 minutes.

If you had actually bothered to go out and check you would see how this is massively different from a. CoH before it and b. ANY RTS before it- which is a point of both praise and contention right now. Opinion is divided but one this is sure as hell true- it's DIFFERENT>

And you just sitting there, ignoring all that has been posted and saying "Oh, it's the same as CoH really..." is entirely unimpressive.

Now, quit lying and saying I have yet to list some- when I have been bringing such things into the thread from day one. Geez!

http://pc.ign.com/articles/943/943461p1.html

Article comparing and contrasting Starcraft 2 and Dawn of War 2.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Good Lord, I cannot believe someone could be like this... will yuo go read the darn thread?

The removal of a base building mechanic is a MASSIVE change and has completely altered the whole game from the ground up. If you cannot see that you are blind. It is NOTHING LIKE COH's base mechanic- not one tiny bit.

The game has been completely refocussed on a smaller scale and, again, rebuilt from the ground up on that basis.

It is also designed with an entirely different speed in mind. No build orders, no massing of enromous forces, no massive queues- instead, games designed to be over in 15 minutes.

If you had actually bothered to go out and check you would see how this is massively different from a. CoH before it and b. ANY RTS before it- which is a point of both praise and contention right now. Opinion is divided but one this is sure as hell true- it's DIFFERENT>

And you just sitting there, ignoring all that has been posted and saying "Oh, it's the same as CoH really..." is entirely unimpressive.

Now, quit lying and saying I have yet to list some- when I have been bringing such things into the thread from day one. Geez!

lol its hardly a massive change....you simply buy tiers instead of build buildings...instead of having physical buildings on the battlefied to build you upgrade tiers....COH had a tiny amount of buildings as well, most of them have a maximum of 3/4 buildings...

a smaller scale when weve seen several videos of armies pouring across the map and tanks and vehichles and Tyrannids in hordes.....riiigghtt

Build orders, if youve not seen the vids on gametrailors and otherwise youll find there are build orders for the main base....theres always build orders, you dont instantly build units and its "drop in" system is the same as COH "call offmap" system albiet faster.

massively diffrent lol......thats a joke, its not massively diffrent, its massively similiar to COH, youve just got squad leaders instead of Doctorines, tiers to buy instead of buildings etc etc and in the process stolen the cover mechanic. The way the units move is very similiar to COH as well.

I've also noted a distinct similarity between some of the mechanics in this game and the mechanics in Endwar.

DOW 2 has even snatched the victory point mechanic from COH

How can it steal from CoH if the same company made both?