By Jim Rossignol on January 23rd, 2009 at 12:12 pm.
So I’ve had a bit more time on the Dawn Of War 2 multiplayer beta, and some thoughts come to mind. I’ve written them up after the jump, and I’m fairly certain you’ll tell me whether or not you agree.
Different, and yet agreeably samey. Less of a battle and more of a brawl. That’s how I’m feeling about Dawn of War 2. I love the spread of options that the four races (and three hero-types per race) provide, and I’m also glad of the absurd Warhammer 40k bombast that was so perfectly pitched in the original. Fights are ostentatious, macho, and bloody. Not-quite-cartoon brutality that makes this entertaining even when you lose. Just the way we like it. The entire game is a little closer in, and much better defined. Everything, from the main menu inwards, is swathed in useful detail. It has a sense of purpose. I love the jungle map, and the Tyranids hiss and shriek just so.
Early on, I wasn’t so sure. The focus on your units, particularly your hero, rather than your structures, is a distinct and far-reaching change. And it’s blatantly clear that the game can be won or lost in the opening couple of minutes, which I’ve heard a few grumbles about. That’s true, but this does not mean that it will be lost in that period, which is quite a different conclusion. In actual fact, if teams manage to deploy fairly evenly in those opening moments, and keep their core assets reasonably well defended, then a proper scrap can emerge.
That’s not to say it’s quite what I wanted. I do miss being able to build a large complex of buildings, and especially turrets. As that kind of player I was, of course, drawn to play the defensive hero classes. The techmarine was particularly satisfying, and I managed to do fairly well in early games by spamming Tarantula turrets across my most sensitive areas. Immediately these kinds of units begin to reveal what is interesting about DoW2, with the techmarine levelling up, and the turrets suppressing enemy units. The heavy weapons really do feel heavy in this game, not just because of the suppression effect, which slows enemy assaults, but also because of the visual splatter of them. The effects rip across the map in a most satisfying manner. They are big guns wot shoot like big guns should
And assuming things don’t fold in the first few minutes, the game really does begin to open up in an interesting way, thanks to that levelling dynamic. The fights become fiercer, more likely to be turned by the sudden burst of a special power. (Possibly at the risk of there being too much micromanagement? I can’t tell yet.) This time the upward spiral of firepower is not simply thanks to base upgrades giving you more tiers of units, but in the clear focus on sexy equipment. Pretty much everyone can be upgraded, with the hero getting three slots for special abilities and additional powers. Once these are in-play then the micro-level of the actual fights become a good deal more compelling. Once again Relic have aced the fighting animations, and watching an Ork warboss beat the hell out of a Tyranid hive tyrant makes for happy nerding.
All this stuff benefits from the lessons learned via Company of Heroes too, with the use of both cover and structures. This I really do approve of. Dawn of War battlefields are no longer fancy, but essentially featureless, playing fields. Instead – as in CoH – the entire thing is enriched by their being made up of a network of possible chokepoints and entrenchment lines. This makes the battles feel far more malleable: you sense there’s more to master, and more options to play with. More to worry about, too. The cover system doesn’t always seem to work for squads, with one dude almost always standing out in the open, but it’s an addition that seems to genuinely rejig the way you have to think, if you want to win.
Of course, having been a complete junkie for hugely unit-rich base-building mega-battles in the original game, I do feel a little disappointed by the pared down, smaller feel of the multiplayer ways, and it makes me fear for the single player too. But that feeling is nevertheless offset by the general new-and-improved shininess of the game. This is one of the instances where a small step up in technology and design talent makes a rather major difference. They’re a couple of games wiser and smarter, and my newer, beefier PC is happy to shoulder the extra graphical load. The tigher focus seems to have brought some details to the fore, and make the large units all the more essential, and impressive.
Once again the Relic team seems to have captured what’s interesting about Games Workshop’s grim 41st century of Only War, and yet still made it colourful and approachable. So approachable, in fact, there’s something quite Blizzardian about it. It’s got that kind of sheen, which seems appropriate, given the history. And that user-friendliness will make the contrast with ultra-traditional Starcraft 2 all the more interesting. It does feel like Relic are making the bolder moves in the RTS world, but whether that will count for much in the race for sales and general acclaim, it’s hard to say. Maybe. I hope so.
We’ll be talking a load more about Dawn Of War 2, which is set for release on 19th/20th February, in a couple of weeks.
Bought Soulstorm, downloaded the Beta of DoW2, started playing, realized that the game runs absymally on my pc, even with everything set to “low”, stopped playing, cried a little.
It’s a real tragedy that the game won’t run properly on my rig, since what little I experienced of it really sold it to me.
report
Loving it after some first hours of weirdness. And yes, the Tech Marine is awesome, though not so much for its turrets (once vehicles pop out they’re toast) but for that teleporter array which is a bit like a mobile base to refill squads again.
Got some worries about the power of vehicles though (especially the big melee smashers), I have the impression that in most late-game fights infantry squads are nowhere to be seen, only for capping points.
report
Okami – did you try turnin the sound quality down? I’ve heard that can have a positive effect on performance.
report
very nice, I expected the game to be more “zoomed in”. How would you compare a game like DotA to this game? I feel like games like dota have caused a shift in newer strategy games. The focus seems be more on squads and units. With the exception of supreme commander of course.
report
From what I’ve heard (PCG review), multiplayer takes the form of 1v1 or 3v3 only. Assuming that’s correct and I didn’t misread the text, any idea why they’re leaving out 2v2, or FFA?
Had a quick google, but can’t seem to find much info on the subject.
Still looking forward to it though – the idea of RPG-esque combined arms tictacs in co-op singleplayer gets me all excited.
report
It’s like the RTS evolutionary branch that was supposed to occur when Myth was released has suddenly snapped back into the proper timeline.
report
2vs2 is still possible on a 3vs3 map but not in a ranked game, only in custom games. The beta also doesn’t reveal how going up in ranks tweaks your heroes’ wargear, the army painter isn’t in either. I still have quite a few questions about that.
report
I can’t get Steam to stop crashing when I try and launch games. Even by reinstalling it. *Cries*
report
DoW2 really does a good job of bringing the RTS forward, with gameplay that’s less about mashing hotkeys and more about directing units. I have to say that the people who claim that this game is “shallow” or “dumbed down” have *not* played it enough. It takes some games to get used to the differences, but once you do it is extremely fun.
report
@Bjbrains
not played the DoW2 Beta yet but i know that a lot of people called CoH shallow simply because they hadn’t played it enough.
report
@Primar I’ve heard they’re going to release a few extra maps in the first few weeks after release, so hopefully there’ll be at least one 2v2 map in there.
On the subject of DoW2 MP, I’ve said what I want here, but I found the inability to properly defend my strategic points infuriating, to say the least. Perhaps it’s just the way your hero dictates your playstyle so drastically that’s hard to begin with. Maybe I’ll get better.
report
The beta only has 1v1 and 3v3 maps. That doesn’t mean 2v2 isn’t possible of course (If nothing else, you can just close a slot on each side in a 3v3 map). I assume dedicated 2v2 and probably 4v4 maps will get added in the full game.
FFA is more doubtful though, since you have two fixed teams, similar to CoH. (Although unlike CoH, you can freely mix factions, so you can have SM and Tyranids vs Orks and Eldar)
About late-game infantry, in my experience they’re still there and they still play a big role. It varies a lot by race, of course, but infantry still provide a lot of the base ranged firepower simply by having more guns than vehicles could ever hope to manage. In fact, I’d say Relic has done an extremely good job in ensuring that no units ever become obsolete.
Orks, which are probably one of the simplest and most straightforward races, have basic sluggas for plain melee, shootas for ranged, and later on they get lootas for heavy supporting fire *but with setup time and limited arc of fire* so they can’t quite replace shootas.
Later still, you get nobz which are brutal in melee, but they’re so hideously expensive, you can’t afford to ditch sluggas but have to rely on a mix. (plus sluggas get flamers, which can be handy)
There are units you use more often than others, of course (I hardly ever use ork stikkbomberz or tyranid raveners), but I can’t think of a single unit that gets entirely superseded by a higher-tier one.
Oh, and ‘nids are deliciously weird to play. I think Relic has got them just right though. They feel like a swarm of big, squishy bugs. Most of them suck in isolation, they’re all about, well, zerging, and about the various synapse aura effects that some key units provide buffing up the rest of the army.
They also die like flies no matter what. You’re lucky as a ‘nid player if you take fewer losses than all other players combined… in a 3v3. Even if you win. ;)
Big, cheap squads.
In contrast, they really made Marines feel like a few superhumans. Their squads are small, and insanely expensive (a squad of 3 tactical marines cost literally twice as much as 8 ‘nid hormogaunts), and powerful as hell.
Good fun
report
Dolphan: are you running the latest service pack for your version of Windows? That has been a problem with some people’s Steam installation.
report
I had my squad of tactical marines nicely tucked into a rock formation, beautiful cover… until my dreadnought plowed through the lot and left them standing around looking confused and ready to cry.
I approve of this destroyable cover stuff, it amuses and dismays all at once.
report
Ging: The destroyable cover is almost too much though. It’s silly how heavy units *just don’t even notice* cover. They don’t try to walk around it, they don’t get slowed by it, they act as if it wasn’t there. And after they’ve been though, of course, it isn’t. Self-fulfilling prophecy, I guess. But it does seem a bit silly when you can get a dreadnought to destroy an entire wall spanning most of the map, just by ordering him to walk from one end of it to the other.
report
Is all cover destructible? A dreadnought ploughing through brick walls is completely correct of course, but there should be a few bits that give them trouble..
report
On the point of special weapons, I never liked micromanaging to the degree that I was any good at them. I preferred Starcraft to Warcraft III on the basis that Warcraft III was *all* about build order, special abilities and optimal path through the tech tree, rather than tactics. World in Conflict is a bit better as the focus is on micromanaging a smaller squad, but as someone on here said, it would be nice for units to drop flares if they’re locked onto, etc. Ground Control’s special weapons were particularly silly – you could destroy a tank in one shot with one, so battles were often about who could unload their special weapons first.
report
After a stalemate the game does ‘create’ more cover with craters and such but it’s never as ideal as the destroyable original map cover.
Gotta try those lategame squads, it’s just a bit harder than in most RTS’s to come up with something anti-vehicle here especially as heroes can only slow vehicles down at best.
Also, has anyone ever used that Terminator Squad special power? :)
report
Techmarine haywire grenade + plasma cannon squad = ork dread killer! Too much fun.
report
[quote]Is all cover destructible? A dreadnought ploughing through brick walls is completely correct of course, but there should be a few bits that give them trouble..[/quote]
Everything except buildings that can be garrisoned.
Also, I feel there’s a bit of difference between “being able to plough through brick walls” (which makes sense), and not even noticing the wall.
I’m not an expert on the fluff, but I’m willing to be that a dread would prefer to walk around walls, if it wasn’t too much trouble. If you have to cross a wall, sure, walk through it. If you have to walk parallel with the wall, wouldn’t it prefer to walk *next to* the wall than stomp through it end to end?
I’d also expect it to be slowed down a bit, at the least.
As it is, it seems like they simply ignore cover entirely.
report
Remind me again what the deal is with the edit button. I’m pretty sure it was here yesterday, and now it’s gone. Does it depend on which computer I’m posting from or something? O.o
report
@Jim
Yeah, Vista Business with service pack 1. It was working fine until a week or so ago when it stopped launching football manager. I’ve looked round the net for similar problems and found nothing. This is the problem with relying on Steam for most games – it stops working and I find myself considering reinstalling the OS to fix it …
report
I’ve still yet to play it :/
GFWL refuses to work in-game (it loads up outside) on my PC…
report
The beta unsold me on this game.
And yes, compared to CoH, it’s dumbed down, imho. Shorter games, faster paced, fewer troops but more micro needed for them (lethality is high on this game, you always have to control closely your troops), smaller maps, more armies but with much fewer troop types, no supply lines, no base building (nor global upgrading apart of 2 for tiers in HQ), no forward hq or tank trapas or sandbags, etc etc.
report
@ Ranger,
I can’t say I’ve found vehicles that much of a challenge myself. It’s all about using the upgrades well, many squads can be upgraded to include anti tank capabilities, including melee squads.
Between that and a well positioned heavy weapon you can keep even the Ork AIs hordes of dreadnoughts in check.
@ Sponge,
Defending points is something you get used to, I remember how frustrating it was in Company of Heroes at first. It’s all about finding a defensive line and holding it, with the occasional fast attack unit behind the lines sweeping up anyone who made it past the choke points.
My only real criticism has to be the AI, it’s almost exactly the same as Dawn of War in it’s insistance on just rushing units right at you asap. Beating you by build speed alone. I thought CoH made big steps forwards in this regard, but sadly this seems to have been forgotten.
report
If you log into the forum, the edit option is available.
report
And now it makes sense. And I look like a madman.
Weird.
report
My little brother has been playing this and he likes it immensely, though apparently it crashes when he tries to play 6-player maps and it can’t even create the .dump file necessary to inform Relic of this little bug. So, uh, if you’re reading Relic…
report
Great RPS article, this one. Thanks!.
report
Mh, to me it sounds like an amazing update to WarCraftIII, set into the future. Less units and a bigger focus on Hero Units. Is this impression correct or just withful thinking?
report
No, it doesn’t have that much focus on heroes, and there aren’t creeps anywhere to farm levels.
report
Indeed it does sound like very WC3-y, mainly the hero- and micro-centric gameplay and the prolific “slippery slope” aspect of matches.
report
Going to have to wait until this is publicly available till I get a chance to try it out, so can’t really comment, but from the sounds of things I would say that it isn’t very much like WC3. The importance of unit positioning seems to the be route they are going, like CoH, rather than the need to learn umpteen hotkeys and the use of specific build orders, as in WC3.
report
I like comebacks in RTS games, things like unit upkeep help manage this.
I lost my big army when i attacked your big army, but now i’m making money faster than you. But heroes leveling up and having abilitys that further pressure the loser? This is great in free for all games where fighting is expensive and best avoided otherwise.
I remember in sacrifice you only had the pathetic units unless you had been brawling, so even though you might have the most souls you had restricted access to power.
report
I’ve been loving this beta – people who are saying vehicles become the be-all end-all in late-game are probably not examining their units well or diversifying enough. No, your shuriken cannons and guardian squad will not stop the enemy deff dread even a bit, why don’t you lure him into my brightlance + banshee squad + powerclaw-equipped hero instead?
Honestly, with a good unit distribution only extremely-late-game units should last long at all in a pitched battle.
This game is only getting better the more I play. I need to improve my ‘nid style though, they’re probably the toughest to play decently.
report
The amount of supposed Micro here is making me think I should probably find my RTS elsewhere.
When I read about how one ‘counters’ things by building specific units with specific upgrades with specific attachments, I start to worry. Mostly because in the first game all I did was give each squad rockets, and either annihilate vehicles, or bounce melee around with the explosions.
report
The level of micro depends on your opponents. You really do have to be like water in a jar and not rely on a single fave tactic, otherwise you’re going on pure-chance that their equally random fave tactic is inferior. Unless they know what they’re doing, in which case you’re buggered.
It helps if you totally do not think of it as an RTS and more like Baldur’s Gate on roids.
report
I’m not going to play the beta. I’ve pre-ordered the Steelbook Edition from Amazon, and am waiting for February 20th like it’s a ten-month early Christmas Day with one present.
Essentially, whatever anyone had said about this I was going to buy it anyway, out of my love of Space Marines.
report
No, it is *nothing* like WC3. Yes, it has “special” hero units, but that’s about the only similarity. There’s no basebuilding, and far more focus on your individual units. WC3 was far simpler. You selected a unit, ordered it to move, and clicked on a few buttons when you wanted it to use a special ability. In DoW2, unit positioning and orientation matters. Place your ranged units in cover, and if they have a heavy weapon, make sure it’s facing the right way. And you have to keep track the mix of melee and ranged combat. Your ranged dudes won’t shoot if they’re engaged in melee, and similarly, your enemy’s ranged units can be disabled by forcing them into melee, even with crappy weak units that are going to ultimately lose. They prevent the enemy’s infantry from using their big guns. And unit preservation matters, which it didn’t in WC3. Every squad gains levels, and it is always cheaper to reinforce existing squads than to train a new one (and doesn’t block the build queue). So you need to use the retreat button liberally.
I’m still ambivalent about levelling, for the reasons Heliocentric mentioned. It can easily become a slippery slope, further strengthening the guy on top. But it’s mitigated by said retreat button. You can usually keep most of your squads alive, even when you’re losing, which means you’ll gain levels as well.
About the amount of micro, it depends on your perspective. Yes, you could say it’s almost all micro, but on the other hand, this is the first RTS I know of that allows you to *focus* on microing, which eases the burden a lot. You don’t have to keep track of build orders or base building as well as the fight. And you rarely have more than 5-8 squads in play at a time. (which also means that every single one of them always get a small icon at the side of the screen showing their hp status and allowing you to select them quickly.)
So I don’t feel the micro is overwhelming at all. But yes, you have to be adaptable and adjust your unit composition and their upgrades, as well as positioning and other factors.
Or to put it another way, I never got the hang of microing in WC3. I was always too busy to worry about the fiddly spells and special abilities that some units had. And to some extent, I had the same problem in DoW. I did fairly well in the game overall, and I used the most important skills on my most important units, but I hardly ever used grenades, for example, because sheesh, how could I? I had so many squads to manage, and they kept running around.
In DoW2, I’m actually finding it intuitive to use all the abilities from all my individual squads. I only have a few squads, and they’re easily selectable, so switching to my ork kommando to get him to throw a grenade, and then follow up with a waaaaaagh on my regular boyz just isn’t such a big deal. And the squad icons at the side of the screen shows me when a squad is low on health, and then I just select it, and hit X (the hotkey for retreat, and they run back to HQ to heal up)
There’s a lot of micro, but the game does a lot to streamline it and for once allow you to focus on it.
report
Honestly, it doesn’t sound that much different than the upgrade balance from the original(only without having to manage buildings galore), granted I haven’t played the beta so I could be missing something. I’ve been in many situations in the original where simply tweaking a couple of Marine outfits can turn a battle around. As for “just throwing rockets” on a marine, it doesn’t seem like you’ve played many rounds of DoW, that tactic just isn’t efficient (maybe in the single player campaign it would be). Spreading out flamers, plasmas, rockets and heavy weapons really diversifies your ability to take on multiple opponents and rockets aren’t effective with assault marines or other “jumper” units once they’ve closed the distance. For me, the micro doesn’t really turn me off, because the original had a fair amount of micro as well, but at the same time having to manage the 10 buildings that had separate (and seemingly random) upgrades to dole out amongst units. I’m excited at the prospect of an RTS that solely focuses on the battle at hand, really puts Strategy in the RTS acronym I think, rather than the RTBO (Real Time Build Order) that most games in the genre have become, very excited to try the beta in a few days.
report
There was apparantly no 2v2 in the review copy either.
report
Well, I’m generally terrible at multitasking and can’t cope in this when it gets to more than 3-4 gorups stalking around. I certainly couldn’t beat a human, the ‘easy’ AI beat me 5 times in a row when i first started. Some races seem more reliant than others on micromanaging and timing their feats. I can see it translating well into single player though, which is what I’m interested in, given my abject lack of ability at playing anything against humans…
report
“About the amount of micro, it depends on your perspective. Yes, you could say it’s almost all micro, but on the other hand, this is the first RTS I know of that allows you to *focus* on microing, which eases the burden a lot.”
Quoted because it’s a key thing. It’s a game that’s removed base-building economic stuff because it totally demands your attention on a squad based level.
KG
report
It’s a shame the single player aspect soundss fairly neglected.
report
Yeah, I’ve seen it bandied about a lot that this is more of a RTT than an RTS game. And that’s certainly accurate if you’re willing to agree to the distinction between the genres in the first place.
report
Since we’re talking RTS games, is Empire Earth II the only one that’s used a “war planner” interface? Basically you opened up a map and coordinated attacks from various unit groups. SupCom could’ve really used something like that (unless I’m missing something).
I hate micro when it’s needed in addition to base building and resource management. Better to focus on just one, ya know?
report
@kieron,
That’s the crucial difference between CoH and DoW2 as well, to my mind. CoH was a game that demanded your complete attention on a tactical level, while also including the standard base building and tech treeing. This made the game a bit overwhelming if you weren’t able to switch between moving up your newly-built units into position, building new structures, doing research, making sure you had the appropriate economic points captured, capturing back all the points the computer’s scouts captured on his frequent bastard runs behind the battle lines and managing a constant multi-front battle line at the same time. The player’s attention is the most valuable resource in an RTS, but CoH was just overwhelming.
DoW’s scaled back approach is much easier to get into, and usually gives you some time to sit back and watch as your heavy bolters plow through the Tyranid wave rushing at you.
report
Multiplayer coh is intense. But with the limited sides and conflicts that can occur its quickly learned. Coh with the expansion has 4 combat relationships betweent the sides to learn.
Without any expansions dow2 has 10. 10 specific pairing in 1 vs 1 that can occur. 10 game flows and comparative abilities to consider.
To me thats a big difference in the time it will take to learn, but a monster to balance. An expansion that adds 2 sides would add 11 more combat relationships (one for each side against itself, one for each side against the original 4 and one for each of the 2 sides against the other.)
Expansion 1 will place them at 21 combat relationships*.
Expansion 2 will place them at 36 combat relationships*.
Coh(with its expansion) has 4, you can learn them, they can be multilayered. They can be rationalised.
*assuming 2 races per expansion.
report
Tech Marine turrets piss me off!
report
Anyone know if you can get the dow2 beta thingie if you already own a full copy of soulstorm? Or do you have to buy the one from steam?
report
Simply register your SS key as a Steam game. It works even with the non-Steam version.
report
“Quoted because it’s a key thing. It’s a game that’s removed base-building economic stuff because it totally demands your attention on a squad based level.”
That sounds much much better to me. I’ve been trying to get info without giving everything away, so this was extremely helpful. Thank you!
report
Something I find interesting is the whole “Champion” dealie. Even though I have a number of losses, I can claim that those losses were due to incompetent teammates because I have been the Champion in almost every winning game I’ve been in (bar the first game where I was still getting used to things). I find it odd, though, that they say you’ll be the champion if you get the highest score regardless of whether or not you win or lose – as far as I can tell, it’s impossible to be the champion if you lose because the winning team gets a 250-point bonus for winning. Bit of an oddity, there.
Anyway, I like the detail in the stats. Neat stuff.
report
Overall, DOW2 strikes me as an attempt, with the help of COH game mechanics, to produce an experience which is slightly closer to tabletop W40K than DOW1 was.
Another thing: Is it just me, or is the sound in the demo just a bit muted-seeming? When I’m watching a fight, it sounds like the fight is happening on the other side of a hill from me, rather than right in front of me. Perhaps a levels/compression issue?
report
Just needing info, when I crashed a few minutes ago a bug report program called ‘bug splat’ came up and wanted me to fill in details and my e-mail. I had never seen it before and didn’t trust it so closed it in task manager.
Is it normal or is this just me who has had this appear after a crash?
report
DoW2 strikes me as a game with a lot of potential that will likely be unrealised. The new engine is clearly a great improvment from DoW1, with battles potentially being twice as epic as before. I say potentially, because everything the epic feel of 40k has gained from the improved graphical effects, it has lost in the scaling down both of squad sizes and unit sizes (eg. no more vehicle arty, infantry instead).
Furthermore, the game seems to have swung too far towards mobile warfare. As it stands, the game rewards you for not fighting. I’ve won more than a few games by avoiding any major confrontation at all and capping points instead, this is worrying to say the least.
Another problem is that requisition is so damned slow to gather. The power rate feels about right, I can’t spam high tech units, but I’m not left waiting to be able to build any. If I lose my army, there isn’t much chance of having the req to rebuild it any time soon. Again, this rewards the player that avoids any confrontation they aren’t certain to win.
It wouldn’t take much to make DoW2 a game I’d be crazy about. Doubling the number of members in main combat squads would be a start (and a proportionate increase to vehicle power). Listening posts would be another, I don’t need the super-fortified LP2s from DoW1, but something to stop a single weak squad capping all my points would be nice. A corresponding requisition boost from LP building would also deal with one of my gripes with the game as it is now.
Much as I doubt either of those will be implemented, I can’t see any reason not to. The weak LPs in CoH did little to stop the fighting moving around, but at the same time kept mobility within reason. And with squad sizes, my rig is quite high spec, but aging (top end machine 2 years ago) and runs everything on high settings with no fps loss ever. If the game is optimised well enough to do that, it can do more.
report
Heh, I’ve now learned about the big advantage of mobility and now my fave commaner is the Kommando Nob.
A common tactic of players is to send just a single squad to take a point without support whilst battles are being fought elsewhere, so the Kommando always gets ambush oppotunities.
report
I’ll have the word “Blizzardian” playing through my mind for days now!
I feel it’s too late to make the game “bigger” though it sounds like a patch-ish feature. I think too many people would jump on to that boat instead of learning the intricacies of the way it is, though…
report
Fenix, do you think modders could do something like that? I haven’t actually played at all, but would a low damage but good suppression LP do what you’re asking for?
report
Gorgeras: Yes, it’s their bug reporting utility. It sends Relic info about the crash so they can fix it :|
And DarkFenix, I disagree, I don’t think it has to be “bigger” or more epic. The SM Tactical squad is a bit on the small side, I think, but other than that, I think they’ve struck a good balance, and it’s not a vastly different scale from the tabletop game.
As for the focus on mobility, I like it. I like that you have a chance of winning even if you’re outgunned. And at the same time, you can bunch your troops together and force the enemy into a fight too, if you want to. A large army guarding two VP’s can’t easily be avoided, so it’s still fairly easy to force the enemy to fight, at least in the games I’ve played.
report
I was really excited about DoW but it’s quickly fading the more I hear about the game. From my point of view it sounds like it has the hero implementation and slippery slope of WC3 as well as the random luck of CoH combined to make one monster of a RTS horror.
Slippery slopes (in this case leveling up units) is terrible for competitive RTS play. Already in an RTS, even one with as many units as Starcraft or Age of Empires, losing a small number of units is a very significant loss to the top end player. It’s very easy for another top end player to exploit even a 1 to 3 unit disadvantage. By adding in experience gain on top of that you are reinforcing the ‘top’ guy artificially. For mid/low end players this gives them the chance to better push one medium/good victory into further momentum but for a high skilled player this does nothing but neuter the chance for exciting gameplay by limiting the chance for comebacks even further than it already is.
On top of that it seems like DoW has the random luck in CoH. I won’t know until I play it but from the sound of people talking about certain units not ending up in cover, units garrisoning in buildings, and other gameplay elements it seems like there’s a little too many spots where the dice is rolled. Random chance = poor for competitive play.
So I’m excited to play this game next week but I’m also really ready to be disappointed. I was hoping that with ES out of the picture DoW could really step up to provide a competitive RTS game but it looks like instead it may just be a distraction until SC2 comes out. Hopefully I’m wrong though.
report
I’m not sure what gives you that impression. it’s not how I see the game, certainly. There definitely isn’t the same slippery slope as WC3, partly because of the focus on take&hold gameplay, which means you don’t always need the biggest guns, and partly because the retreat mechanic allows the loser to preserve his squads as well, while granting him cheap reinforcements.
If even one squad member makes it back to HQ alive (and they often do, because they move faster and take very little damage when retreating), the squad retains its XP.
I’m not sure how you think cover and garrisoning has to do with luck though. It isn’t random as far as I’m aware. Or did I misunderstand you?
There’s still a random element, but mostly in fighting, because your units will perform special moves pretty much randomly. In a sandbox/test game with a friend, his commander got lucky at the start of our duel and performed a knockback strike 3 times at the start, which brought his commander ahead for a while. But in the long run it evens out.
That said, I don’t think DoW2 will be competitive in the sense that Starcraft is competetive. The races are simply too different, and it’s impossible to balance to the extent that SC was. But that also opens up the gameplay and makes it much more varied. It won’t be something Koreans play in tournaments for the next decade, just like the original DoW wasn’t. But it’s far from a random game, and luck doesn’t determine the winner.
If you expect something like SC2, then yes, you’ll be disappointed, and the game isn’t for you. SC has always been about exact fairness and balance, between every side and every unit.
report
Really looking forward to this one. I always thought DoW was great in shootouts, not so much in base building. So it’s a good thing DoW2 is concentrated on what it does best.
Also, it’s 41st millenium of Only War. Nerd mode off, kthx.
report
@Logo: I am impressed by the competitive people needs on a RTS. I think is very doable to make a RTS with that guildelines, but is not what most people want to do, for once. Competitive players are a minority (I suppose). Most people want just to have fun and some laughts. CoH was full of these laughts, the way stuff destroy and the terrain change was awesome. More games sould be like CoH.
But I digress… If you guys really need something like that, and devs target is something different (because make games for different people) maybe you guys sould step into dev position, and make a game for your community. Maybe a mod, create a game (or mod) exactly like what you describe.
Or.. what you say, wait for SC2, that seems designed for you guys.
report
Yeah about those Techmarine turrets… What is the counter to those things if you’ve been pushed all the way back to your base in an annihilation game and you’re not making any real rec/power? Suppression is hugely effective in this game.
I do hope Relic patches in a max limit for the turrets and forces you to dismantle old turrets manually with your commander once your limit has been met.
report
The base building aspect isn’t something i miss that much. In DOW base building always just felt like you were building your own lifebar in case the enemy got close enough.
That said, it’s pretty fun on a really basic level to change the geography of the battlefield, if only in a little way. I do hope for bigger battlefields and an optional doubled unit cap eventually.
report
Sunjammer: The obvious counter is to play the game as it was intended, with victory points rather than annihilate… ;)
But yes, SM turrets are probably overpowered at the moment. But ultimately, their weakness will always be their immobility. Walk around them, avoid them, or exploit the fact that they can’t come to each other’s aid. Focus fire on one that’s not within range of other turrets. Sneak around, and retake the req points.
But honestly, if you’ve been pushed back to your base and earn no req, I think you have bigger problems than the turrets. You need to play more agggressive.
report
The system works! Nabbed myself a beta key. Still plenty left got anyone interested. What a crying shame it is that I’m downloading at around 25kB/s.
report
Hmm not sure how I managed that fail of a link. Let’s try again.
report
Cool! How lucky am I? Wake up at 3pm, randomly check RPS and get myself a DoW2 beta key!!! Can’t wait to check it out.
report
Jalf i don’t have this problem ;) it’s just a hugely effective tactic when I use it. So much so i can’t be bothered playing Techmarine anymore.
The reasonable counter is to use jump troops and get in close for a smashing. But considering the TM can just about spam the things all he has to do is pull back and build another while you’re still wailing on the previous one.
report
Thanks for the link Kua, I’m in. 350 KB/s download here.
Just a reminder, you need a free Games for Windows Live to play DoW2 online.
report
Frankly, I’m glad Dawn of War II is a significant gameplay change. Except for Tyranids, they already did pretty much the definitive Dawn of War 1 with Dark Crusade (or, I *guess*, Soulstorm. Blah.). More of the same would have been pretty redundant. You can, after all, always go back and play more Dawn of War 1 if you crave base building and turret chokepoints and such.
Now all I need is Warhammer 40K: Total War. ;P
report
No base building? Friggen sweet! I’m all for micromanagement, as long as it’s all tactical. Bring on DoW 2!
report
I am now interested. Not interested enough to pay to access a beta though…
report
The little touches are truly what make this game great. The fact that every unit shows up on your HUD and is automatically bound to a control group is awesome. How is it this hasn’t been in a game before? The more I play this, the more I like it, and I generally don’t like playing RTS’ versus non-friends.
report
@Fumarole: what you comments sounds like how Sins of Solar Empire, and others..
report
Diary:
3.12pm: Remember Eurogamer are giving away 3000 beta keys at three. Imagine they’re all gone.
3.13pm: Go to Eurogamer website. Open beta key giveaway link. Discover 2734 remain.
3.14pm: Can’t remember Eurogamer login details. Created new account.
3.15pm: Logged in. Still 2512 keys remaining. Get one. Wonder what all the fuss was about.
3.32pm: Bless Virgin for 1.1MB/s download speed. Launch game.
3.40pm: Realise I’m terrible at the game.
3.55pm: Discover the game is easier as Tyranids. Think I’m not so bad at it.
4.12pm: Confirmation that I am so bad. Even as Tyranids. Sigh.
report
Wow, Eduardo, you played it for an hour and decide you’re bad at it?
Methinks you need to invest a little bit more
report
I just played with a guy called Eduardo, lol. Was that you? I was butlah in that 3v3.
I have to say the game is pretty……………. meh. It strikes me as a contradiction in terms: it has an onus on units, micro and combat, but the speed of a macro, base building RTS.
Which basically means that it’s infuriatingly slow.
report
Just played my first round and didn’t enjoy it. I’ll give the beta a few more shots before relegating DoW II to “bargain bin purchase 3 years from now” status. Like Butler said: it plays like a base-building RTS sans base-building. At least WiC is action-packed.
report
Exactly. It’s fighting on WiC’s turf, and it’s a fight it can’t win IMO.
report
I don’t think it has much in common with WiC. Methinks you need to give it a liiiittle more time before you judge it. ;)
report
I loved CoH to death, and DoW was darned good; but I like macro, not micro. I like base-building, and I HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE games that are over in the first five minutes; CoH made that a totally solved issue.
There have been so few good RTS games in the last several years. The whole genre has been suffering widespread consolification, with dumbed down and arcadified games abounding (C&C, Red Alert, WiC).
I am not a happy, optimistic panda with regards to the future.
report
DoW2 is certainly not over in the first five minutes either, any more than CoH was.
I can understand liking basebuilding and such, but calling dow2 “dumbed down” is just silly. It isn’t, and it’s not over in the first five minutes. But it might focus on your least favorite gameplay aspects, and then it’s probably not for you. ;)
I don’t think there’s more micro in DoW2 than in CoH though. The difference is simply that DoW2 allows you to concentrate on it so it doesn’t become the same burden. But CoH had exactly the same elements of microing. You still had to tell your units to use cover, you still had to tell them when to use grenades, or which unit they should attack. None of that has changed.
I think the whole “micro vs macro” discussion is completely missing the point. RTS’es have never been about macro. As long as you have to watch the fights and order your units to move or attack, it’s micro. And show me a RTS where not doing those things was a viable strategy.
report
I don’t like it.
– It needs LIVE, that is fun as herpes.
– …actually, is all built with a consoley style.
– If you hate the L4D matchmarking stuff, you will hate this game even more.
– Confusing GUI in-game.
– Ignore all the comments about “squad based”. DOW1 was squad base. This one is about 4 guys and chief. Thats not a squad, thats more like a music group. You can control more stuff in AoC with the necro.
– Combat is confusing.
Everything else is very good, and playing with friends against a AI machines (coop) maybe is fun. Against other people, is just too confusing.
report
Wow i have the exact opposite experiences as naysayers here:
- Live is, unfortunately, completely alright once it’s up and going. I’m not bothered by it beyond the initial setup phase. It does help that i already have an XBL account.
- It *IS* quite consoley. But none of its consoley bits bother me the slightest. This is not DX:IW territory.
- The GUI is completely clear to me; Keyboard shortcuts are abundantly clear, control groups are predeclared in the order of unit construction, and it takes a quick glance to the top right to get an assessment of everyone’s status. I flopped around in it for a couple of games, now it’s totally fine.
- It’s totally squad based. It’s about a chief and 4 SQUADS. There be squads! Squaaads! It’s a squaddy game!
- The pace is far from slow. So much so that i can effectively retreat a unit from a skirmish on the far side of the map, reinforce them at the stronghold and still have time to get them back in the skirmish before it’s done. It really does depend on the kind of army you’re playing. If you think the game is slow, play some Eldar.
- Cover is FAR easier to get into than in CoH. CoH, for me, was one of the most taxing games ever. I wanted to love it, but it just wore me down. Too much bloody micro in too many corners of the map at the same time. With DoW2 the unit count is low enough that i can successfully micro two separate skirmishes without ever losing track of what’s going on. I am NOT good at micro, but it feels genuinely fun in DoW2 as opposed to toil.
- I think people are playing it wrong. Don’t, DON’T play annihilation games. My god, the boredom! And don’t play 1v1! This is a game where you “are” your commander dude, and the makeup of your force are the weapons you equip him with. Play it 2v2 or ideally higher. The more commanders are on the map the more tactically complex and rewarding the game becomes. 1v1 is like playing 1v1 counterstrike or something, it just makes no sense.
- You kind of need to use voice comms online.. Just saying..
Anyway i’m stoked. And i’ve gone from “what the helll….. gahhhh…..” to being really excited.
report
Live is horrible. I’m getting far more NAT negotiation failures than in DoW and CoH combined. People get disconnected or lag out impressively often. And the GfW interface is a monstrosity. Try timing how long it takes to invite 5 friends to a game.
Now try the opposite, one of your 5 friends is hosting a game, but you don’t know who. How long will it take you to join his game?
Now contrast this with Steam. shift-tab to pull up friends list *instantly, with no fancy animations slowing it down*, right click->invite on each friend, without having to open his profile or anything.
The GfW interface is *ridiculous*. Yes, it might have worked on 360, but sheesh, on PC…
Apart from that, I agree with Sunjammer on the above.
report
RTS’es have never been about macro. As long as you have to watch the fights and order your units to move or attack, it’s micro. And show me a RTS where not doing those things was a viable strategy.
Urgh. Supreme Commander and Total Annihilation being the obvious ones.
With SC and WC being the best of both worlds, with heavy, demanding micro and a quite indepth base building and expansion necessary to get anywhere…
report
That top paragraph was meant to be in :/
report
I have no idea what people are complaining about. DOW2 is the first RTS in a while that’s really got me hooked. With a few tweaks (as in, is it just me, or are the Eldar a little OP?) and some stability fixes, this game will go down as one of the year’s greatest. WiC is a great game, but I don’t see the comparisons. They feel like totally different games to me.
So, anyone who reads this that may be on the fence. Try it out. I went in with low expectations after hearing all the complaints here and found the game to be incredibly engaging. I’ve already pre-ordered through steam and am counting down the days until release. Hell, you too can try it starting tomorrow, anyway….
That’s my two cents…or quid….or whatever it is you guys say over yonder.
report
@jalf “I don’t think there’s more micro in DoW2 than in CoH though. The difference is simply that DoW2 allows you to concentrate on it so it doesn’t become the same burden. But CoH had exactly the same elements of microing.”
That’s exactly what dumbed down means in this context. They made the game easier to manage in order to appease to more casual players. For players that could manage all aspects of CoH highly efficiently, DoW2 is dumbed down.
report
@ jalf and devildogff
the only comparison made to WiC was the bias towards unit management as oppose to base management. I don’t see the problem with that comparison.
I’m not dismissing the game – I don’t think anyone is – more just voicing my initial impressions. And to me, it seems to have a fundamental flaw.
report
Butler,
No, I agree…after looking at your comment again, your comparison was more than fair. My apologies.
I guess it all comes down to flavor. I like DOW2′s flavor; you may not. Totally acceptable. Just means more DOW2 for me :)
But don’t get me wrong. I see some problems. Just nothing so bad that it turned me off in the slightest. Now I just need to get better at it so that my losses don’t outnumber my wins…
report
Eldar OP? Dunno about that. I’ve had way, way tougher fights against Orks. As with any DoW2 game, supporting melee units with ranged firepower is tantamount. Eldar are traditionally *under*powered by virtue of being so damn specialized they fall apart when separated, and have their fleet of foot skill to compensate for that. They also die when there’s a breeze; guardian squads just disappear under heavy weapons fire, and aside from upgraded banshees most Eldar are extremely vulnerable to close combat.
One thing that’s easy to forget is that even units that aren’t dedicated melee units are often times better at melee than their adversaries. Space marines shooting it out with guardians for instance is sort of hilarious once you send those dudes in for melee.
My only complaint about this game is that there is no push to talk, and that it doesn’t scale down far enough; I’m going to need a new box for this. Fuck.
report
Does anyone else find the icons in the UI of this game too small?
report
I’m inclined to agree with you, Sunjammer, except that Howling Banshees with the Exarch and the Aspect upgrade are deadly. Even a single squad can rip through infantry and vehicles alike, if they manage to close the distance. War shout suppresses infantry, vehicles get torn to shreds with their upgrades blades, they do lots of knockdown against infantry while meleeing… They’re lovely.
report
@jalf
Cover and garrisoning in CoH was random from what I remember for a few reasons. For garrisoning you couldn’t pick which window to have your units station at when loaded in the building. On top of that each window had a set arc and possibly exposed you to fire. So it wasn’t uncommon to see your unit garrison in a poor window and get gunned down. I believe you could learn the patterns of how the buildings loaded but it seems kinda shallow and annoying in comparison to being able to move the crew to the window you want them at or some other mechanic.
For cover the problem in CoH that I had was that you could have some units ‘outside’ of the cover taking extra damage simply by the way the AI positioned your squad. Also the cover I believe worked as part of a % chance situation. So instead of a sure thing cover could, by roll of the dice, be completely worthless to you. CoH in general had a large amount of randomness to it from what I remember (fine for a game aimed at casual players but it kills any competition of the game). If you can’t rely on certain rules and truths (like you can that 1 zealot beats 1 zergling in a straight up fight) then would you really want to have tournament winnings relying on it?
@Tei
Oh don’t get me wrong I’m more than happy to see more games come out that expand the genre even if they aren’t competitive. It’s just that beyond the ‘craft series there really isn’t anything for the competitive RTS scene at the moment. I think I’m ‘disappointed’ (which I’m not until I actually play the game on the 27th/28th) because I really enjoyed the original DoW other than initial balance/bug issues. So if I can’t get into DoW2 like I could DoW1 it’d be a disappointment for me
report
The RTS genre is lacking when it comes to casual online matches. BF2: join server and play. TF2: join server and play. CS: join server and play. Then leave whenever, no real obligations. I guess it’s because FPS games are so alike that you only have to really learn it once. Try going from StarCraft to SupCom to DoW to C&C…each one is totally different. I don’t have the time or patience to master each game’s esoteric interfaces and random damage calculators and build orders.
Outside of WiC, I’ve yet to play an online RTS that’s friendly to those of us who don’t spend hours mastering hotkeys and unit clicks. As much as I like the genre for single-player, I think that it sucks ass when it comes to multiplayer, but maybe I’m an exception. DoW II seems like a step in the right direction, I just find it incredibly boring.
report
I flatter myself that I became pretty expert at Company of Heroes, and the only hotkeys I ever used were control groups. I found the mouse perfectly adequate for the game’s intense micromanagement otherwise.
Despite playing RTS games since ’97, CoH was the first one I became actually good at. I strongly believe that anyone can do so, and from the beta, I think Dawn of War 2 is the same.
report
“As much as I like the genre for single-player, I think that it sucks ass when it comes to multiplayer, but maybe I’m an exception.”
Count me in here — I love single player RTS games, but I find them extremely terrible multiplayer experiences. I should really, really try WiC multiplayer, as I’ve heard a lot of good things.
Even Starcraft puts me off, though, as build order/micromanagement trumps any tactical skill. Which is a shame, really, as the only ‘RTS’ style games I can think of that reward actual strategic combat thinking are the old Chaos Gate, and Close Combat series.
report
I’d wait until the Soviet Strike expansion comes out…might get a good package deal on the Steam.
WiC isn’t perfect, but it’s fun enough for my purposes. Pet peeves: infantry are a bit underpowered, servers generally hate artillery support players, and the rock-paper-scissors balancing relies heavily on teamwork, which is sometimes nonexistent on pub servers (if you run into your direct counter, say mobile AA as an air cav specialist, you’re boned no matter what).
Its greatest contribution, IMHO: bringing online FPS-style accessibility to the RTS genre. Games can have up to 16 players (8 vs 8) and can easily be joined in-progress. If someone rage quits or legitimately drops, no biggie. There’s even a sort of respawn timer: resources from destroyed units are slowly returned.
Demigod looks promising. Stardock and GPG say that their goal is to make it the Counter-Strike of RTS games. Indeed, there won’t even be a tutorial because it’s supposed to be easy to pick-up and play. Any beta testers care to comment?
report
Erlam:
Count me in here — I love single player RTS games, but I find them extremely terrible multiplayer experiences. I should really, really try WiC multiplayer, as I’ve heard a lot of good things.
Even Starcraft puts me off, though, as build order/micromanagement trumps any tactical skill.
Play Company of Heroes, for God’s sake. Really. It is a real dynamic shift in RTS gaming, and hasn’t yet been bettered. Multiplayer is an order of magnitude more tactical and cinematic than the singleplayer, what with the cover system and weapon teams and stuff like tanks being impervious to small arms fire. It’s like one of those Close Combat or Combat Mission games except with in-game training and the oppressively hardcore bits stripped out of them.
report
I was surprised that it ran on my ageing rig. Admittedly with everything but model detail and textures set to low, and at 1280×1024. I am really bad at the multiplayer side though. :P The new mechanics certainly make firefights a lot more interesting, and having a heavy bolter set up in a building was a laugh for all of 20 seconds, then someone destroyed it. I may even win a match one of these days…
report
addendum: I won! Twice!
report
To anyone playing with an old rig:
What are the actual specs on your machine, and how does it run when you try to play a 3vs3?
report
I like all the details fine, smaller maps are better so we can fight, not play risiko, heroes whatever.
But it’s too much children deathmatch for my taste, it’s too gamey and too little destroying of heresy. Yes it’s stuff for the single player… but i also want it in multi, k?
report
“Try going from StarCraft to SupCom to DoW to C&C…each one is totally different. I don’t have the time or patience to master each game’s esoteric interfaces and random damage calculators and build orders.”
I have what I call the 100 match rule. I think for any RTS it takes ~100 games for you to really understand the game and begin to play it well. Now of course some gosu RTS players will rise to the top of the ladder sooner but generally until they’ve played about 100 games it’s more of their micro skill than understanding the game and its details.
For casual friendly RTS games try out Demigod or DotA (its inspiration). DotA has a steep initial learning curve but once you get past your first dozen or so games you generally will know enough to play decently (in -em games at least). Fair warning the DotA crowd is one of the most caustic gaming communities around so you’ll need a fire proof-jacket (or a bunch of friends) to survive your newbie experience but the game plays like an RTS that’s more noob friendly.
Demigod should be another step in the right direction by having less heroes and likely less complex items/recipes to allow people to get into the game quicker.
report
“It’s like one of those Close Combat or Combat Mission games except with in-game training and the oppressively hardcore bits stripped out of them.”
and all of those bits were replaced with infuriating random chance :/.
(sorry to double post)
report
The random element is what makes CoH for me. It never feels unfair, it feels right. Whether it’s benefiting me or the enemy, it feels right.
I’ve been playing Company of Heroes since release and I don’t think DoW2 will replace it, just sit side by side with it.
report
“It never feels unfair, it feels right.”
It ‘feels’ fair and is great for casual play. Any person who wants to play RTS games casually should pick up CoH, like you recommended earlier. I completely agree with you and find CoH fantastic as a casual RTS.
But in reality randomness is never fair. By definition it’s random. Sure over infinite plays the randomness is fair but you never play the same person infinite times. So while random helps make games fun for casual play (see L4D, TF2, and CoH) it is a big hinderance to making the game fun for hardcore audience.
If DoW2 falls under the ‘random/casual’ umbrella so be it. I’m sure many people will enjoy the game as it seems to build a lot on CoH but it won’t be the game for me (or many competitive people I think). The more I read up the more Dow2 though it seems to be somewhere in the middle which could be a nice mix. If they can nail that middle ground right they’d have a game that’s viable for competitive play while being very accessible to casual players. When you do that and combine it with fast match times (which DoW2 has) a good spectator game is born. Easy casual play means it’s simple for people to learn the basics and get into the game and its MP scene. Good competitive play means that there’s depth and strategy to make tournaments feasible and interesting. Get the casuals watching the competitive people play and an e-sport is born.
I guess I’ll find out tonight/tomorrow how well DoW2 delivers. I can’t wait :P.
report
“RTS’es have never been about macro. As long as you have to watch the fights and order your units to move or attack, it’s micro. And show me a RTS where not doing those things was a viable strategy.
Urgh. Supreme Commander and Total Annihilation being the obvious ones. ”
Try playing those games competitively without micro then. :) SupCom is nowhere near the game of dots some people make it out to be and TA units need constant caretaking with such rompy terrain.
DoW II is ace, playing it more and more and discovering every race feature and every hero tweak is a great thing. It offers enough micro to be as rewarding as any traditional RTS and it’s easily more atmospheric than the ‘Craft games, just play with some Orkz and try to deny that statement, hilarious in some kind of TF2-way even. There are lots of issues still but they’re mostly not game-related, it’s mainly Live that is to blame or what Relic has done with it.
report
I love it.
I’m not very good at it yet, but I had the ‘pleasure’ of playing against someone who’d clearly been putting the Techmarine hours in (i.e. was at Rank 22 after about two days) who just dominated me tactically. All about garrisoning buildings near requisition points and setting up turrets, in his case. Was enlightening.
report
I’ve been playing for a bit now, but only against the CPU because, well, it’s an RTS, and I will get annihilated by someone who hasn’t stopped playing since the beta came out.
Some comments:
1) The A.I. is so awful it will lose you games. I don’t mean the CPU player, I mean the A.I. for your units. For example: my Devastator Squad is firing over a wall, comes under attack from behind. I have another unit melee the attacker, and tell my unit to shoot the enemy it was firing at over the wall. It un-sets up, and then moves around the wall. Dying, because it was in cover for a fucking reason.
2) I managed to destroy a heavy bolter squad by having my one-man scout squad dance around a rock. Yes, a rock. Because they couldn’t ‘setup’ due to him moving, they just kept pivoting, and the scouts shotgun would knock down the non-bolter guy, making him useless. It took a minute or so, but 1 scout > heavy bolter? Uh, no.
3) I’ve lost count of the amount of times I’ve had a unit (usually the Dreadnought) become stuck in an animation, and get picked off. It’s a huge problem.it will sit there, spinning, and never touch an enemy.
There are more things but I think my rant will end here.
report
@Erlam:
How did you get to play against the CPU? I only got to play against the AI when others were kicked due to lagging the game too much.
report
Just host a game and after picking your race, on the next screen change all the player slots to AI (click on each of them and choose).
report
I was so looking forward to this one. I loved the original but Relic have dramatically changed the game. Its simply not Dawn of war any more, but Company of Heroes in a DoW frock.
Trying to get a ranked game is simply a joke. Once all the hype has gone, it will take ages just to find one game. It takes forever already!
Despite claiming base building – there isnt any (apart from turrets and tunnels – wow!). Thanks to the beta, I have cancelled my pre-order
report
AWESOME GAME!
Easy to find a game, great that it runs on Windows Live, and finally we get Nids!
I must say this is a great game….if you have a gaming computer….regular comps just don’t do the game justice, oh and you need a close to perfect internet connection because from what i’ve experienced it gets really laggy
report
“Random chance = poor for competitive play.”
Tell that to Poker. Or Sports.
You know, those competitive things that were around long before the random-is-bad-bandwagon?
report
It really depends how the random element affects the game. If the game is designed to compensate for or to actually utilise the random element, it becomes an acceptable feature. If the design does not support it well enough, it becomes a bane in competitive circles.
In Sports:
Please give examples. In most cases the ‘chance’ will be affecting both sides equally (e.g. weather), and there are mechanics in the game that minimalise these effects (e.g. swapping sides halfway through the game).
In Poker
The random element is initial and is not exposed immediately. It is only exposed to one player privately and therefore the player can decide to play his own game irregardless of the hand he has. In fact, a lot of the time you play poker not according to the cards you have, but to the cards you think your opponant has. Depending on how good you are at reading the other player and how good you are at giving misleading signals, the cards you have in your hand don’t mean very much at all.
report
Crispy covered the case of competetive sport, but I’d like to add that poker works as a gambling game; it would be terrible as a competition-for-competition’s-sake game. (Terrible may be a bit strong, given that it’s possible to play for ‘pride’ and have a bit of fun, but in that sense it’s probably at a similar level to monopoly.) It’s not a coincidence that the deepest and, in a competetive sense, ‘best’ games (e.g. chess) are all deterministic. That last sentence leaves me rather open to counter-examples, but I can all but guarantee that any randomness present in a high-level competitive game will be fair, and either naturally or by human intervention will almost always leave both players equally ‘lucky’ within one unit of competition (i.e. one round of tournament play: this may be a single match, or a series of matches). Poker does not work this way, and an entire tournament can easily be won or lost due to luck alone. It’s very possible to run lucky or unlucky over what might seem like the long term, to the point of handing a profit to someone who ‘should’ be a losing player, and vice-versa.
report
*competitive
:-[
report