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 Wonder if demons will be classed as a seperate race this time
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.
__________________
"We've got maybe seconds before Darth Rosenberg grinds everybody into Jawa burgers and not one of you buds has the midi-chlorians to stop her!"
"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. "
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.
Last edited by Hazardous on Dec 16th, 2008 at 01:12 PM
Gender: Male Location: The epitome of my evolution.
Account Restricted
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.
__________________
"We've got maybe seconds before Darth Rosenberg grinds everybody into Jawa burgers and not one of you buds has the midi-chlorians to stop her!"
"You've never had any TINY bit of sex, have you?"
BtVS
Last edited by Ushgarak on Dec 17th, 2008 at 05:38 PM
Gender: Male Location: The epitome of my evolution.
Account Restricted
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.
__________________
"We've got maybe seconds before Darth Rosenberg grinds everybody into Jawa burgers and not one of you buds has the midi-chlorians to stop her!"
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.
__________________
"We've got maybe seconds before Darth Rosenberg grinds everybody into Jawa burgers and not one of you buds has the midi-chlorians to stop her!"
"You've never had any TINY bit of sex, have you?"
BtVS
Last edited by Ushgarak on Dec 18th, 2008 at 09:21 AM
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.
__________________
"We've got maybe seconds before Darth Rosenberg grinds everybody into Jawa burgers and not one of you buds has the midi-chlorians to stop her!"
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.
KMC Community Forums
Dec 16th, 2008 12:19 PM
Wonder if demons will be classed as a seperate race this time 
