Dawn Of War 3: “Custom Mega Armies”

By Jim Rossignol on July 13th, 2011 at 2:06 pm.


THQ are hyping their big announcement for Dawn Of War 3 at GamesCom in August, and they’ve been chatting to EG about it, claiming that they want to allow players to create “custom mega armies”. Relic marketing manager James McDermott said:

“With the 40k universe, the tagline is: there is only war. We want to give you that greater sense of the war. The battle. The war that rages eternal, and make that feel like that’s really imposing and all around you, and you have your own personal, custom army in there. Your army and my army should feel very different. That’s where we would like to get to.”

Relic are apparently “trying to leverage even more so on the Games Workshop tabletop game”. Exciting! The full details should emerge around 18th of August.

, , , .

119 Comments »

  1. Premium User Badge

    Okami says:

    Epic Dawn of War?

    Pleeeeease!!

    • Premium User Badge

      Hanban says:

      Yes please! That would be a lovely way to go!

      And by the by, how can some of you read microtransactions into this statement? Have people really become that obsessed with it(Or is it the evil market that has become obsessed with it? Dun dun duunn)?

      Warhammer armies have always been customizable. From expensive plastic figures that you customize to giving your computer game multiplayer armies a paint job. Since it’s so much a part of the franchise I find it rather hard to believe they would ask us to pay for it.

      Then again. Games Workshop always liked money. A lot.

    • Mr_Hands says:

      I see that this thread lacks the requisite “please add Battlefleet Gothic to the DoW universe” comment.

      Please add Battlefleet Gothic to the DoW universe.

    • WaveOfMutilation says:

      Can I have both?

      Can I, dare I ask, have Total War: 40k?

      Epic sieges, land skirmishes, space fleet battles! And any attempts at diplomacy would not only be instantly refuted but cause your immediate execution by the Inquisition.

  2. Hmm-Hmm. says:

    What, already?! When was Retribution launched again? I didn’t expect a new iteration before a couple of years had passed.

    • Springy says:

      Then rejoice! “THQ core games boss Danny Bilson suggested the Warhammer 40K RTS would launch between 18 months and two years after Dawn of War II – Retribution.”

    • Meat Circus says:

      I expected we’d see one last Dawn of War II expansion before they unleashed III. Retribution was great, but felt like an evolution rather than a destination.

    • Xocrates says:

      Yes, Retribution felt like they were creating a platform for future expansions, in particular with the decision to change to Steamworks from GFWL.

      I expected at least one new expansion, which apparently won’t happen unless they farm it out to other developer and risk a new Soulstorm.

    • ScubaMonster says:

      Pretty sure they already said they were done with Retribution. Kind of sucks, because Dawn of War 1 had more factions with their expansions. Hopefully, they bring back as many races as they can with the 3rd.

  3. Alexander Norris says:

    I still won’t be interested unless the Tau are in (sorry Keiron; you are rubbish).

    • aircool says:

      Yeah. I’m a fan of the Tau as well. They offer a fresh perspective on the WH40K universe.

    • jonfitt says:

      Bah! Newfangled upstarts.

    • frenz0rz says:

      Nonsense, jonfitt. For the greater good!

    • mouton says:

      Tau are cool, but too sane. That’s why everyone hates them!

    • ScubaMonster says:

      Yeah Tau are awesome. They need to bring back the Necrons as well.

    • Nick says:

      better addition than necrons anyway.

      Bring back squats!

    • Vinraith says:

      Yeah, the Tau are pretty great. What’s a dark and war torn future without space communists?

    • jonfitt says:

      I dunno. The first I saw of the Tau and Necron was in the DoW1 expansion and I wasn’t super impressed (in Games Workshop). Space Gundam, and Space Terminator-Mummies didn’t do it for me.
      As an old school player they will never feel canon.
      I would rather have seen the Squats make a comeback.

    • theleif says:

      Squats had the coolest units in Epic by far. Land trains? Goliath mega cannons? Gyrocopthers? Overlord Armoured Airships? Nuff said.

  4. Real Horrorshow says:

    Oh god please no. Goodbye balance, hello Call of Duty: the RTS.

    This kind of thinking is what made Shogun 2′s multiplayer unplayable. Nothing but one army of veteran 9 matchlock monks and Great Guard after another.

    • DrGonzo says:

      What does what you said have to do with anything?

    • Askeladd says:

      Well, I think he wants to express that he fears that the “own army”-feature means something similiar to the army customisation in shogun 2.

      I hate shogun 2 multiplayer.

    • John Connor says:

      Cry more. If you want to play a sport play fucking baseball (or cricket, righto). I want to fight a massive war with huge stakes and heaps of explosions, Shogun was heaps of fun with friends. We don’t need another fucking DOTA. DOWII will still be here for people who can’t handle more than three units at a time, but for the rest of us… this sounds like awesome news. Finally maybe they will live up to the potential they almost reached with Dark Crusade.

    • Real Horrorshow says:

      @Askeladd – Correct. Customizable, persistent armies in Shogun 2 meant an unbalanced mess where everyone grinds for max vet on the best units and min-maxes their upgrades. It becomes a case of “best army wins” instead of smarter player wins. This article makes me fear DoW3 will be heading down the same path.

      @John Connor – My fears have nothing to do with the size of the armies in DoW3 getting bigger. I actually welcome that. Please read more carefully. Also, fucking calm the fucking fuck the fuck down. Fuck.

    • luphisto says:

      Aside from the swearing, I have to agree with the saviour of man entirely.

    • Khann says:

      I think you missed his point.

      Edit: Whoops, that was aimed at John Connor. Man this comment system is the worst! Why isn’t the posting like this edit window instead of the awful system currently in place?

    • Archonsod says:

      “Customizable, persistent armies in Shogun 2 meant an unbalanced mess where everyone grinds for max vet on the best units and min-maxes their upgrades. It becomes a case of “best army wins” instead of smarter player wins. This article makes me fear DoW3 will be heading down the same path.”

      Rather than say following the thirty year old wargame it’s based on which has always allowed customisable armies?

    • Retribution says:

      @Connor: sorry, but i’ll take balance and fair-play over ZOMGMOARSPLOSIONSEPIK any day; i remember the Necrons from Dark Crusade, is that the potential you speak of? A completely broken mess?

    • John Connor says:

      @Real Horrorshow,

      Sorry, I did read your comment. I never gave two shits about the “online campaign” or whatever lame wrapper for matchmaking that was, so I didn’t know wtf you were talking about. I played the real campaign and online battles. I thought you were just shit talking Shogun because of some balance thing that doesnt actually effect how fun the game is (99% of the time with these esports fags), which is the best RTS I’ve played in years.

      These small-scale tower-defence DOTA clones are a plague on PC gaming that need to die, not to mention the esports Starcraft fags who are so obsessed with balance they forget about how the game’s supposed to be fun, not football. Give me my armies or give me death.

      PS. I’m calm. I’m just Australian. You wouldn’t be able to read what I’m writing if I wasn’t calm.

    • ScubaMonster says:

      I don’t think it’s fair to say only e-sports fanatics are the ones that care too much about balance. If a game is unbalanced to the point where everybody is using the “I Win” army combination that ruins a lot of the fun. If a faction is overpowered, but you personally like a different one, that could be very frustrating if it turns into a situation of “game over” before the match even starts because the game is terribly unbalanced. That’s not an e-sports concern, that should concern everyone.

      That being said, I don’t think this will necessarily be the case with this game.

    • Barman1942 says:

      I still don’t see what Shogun 2 has to do with any of this. Since when has Dawn of War been remotely like Total War?

    • LennyLeonardo says:

      Is no-one else bothered by the phrase “esports fags”? John Connor, can you knock it off, please?

    • Doctor_Hellsturm says:

      +1 for no usage of the word fags. The lack of gay slurs and racism is why i read the comment section in the first place.

    • age says:

      I thought that the “strategy games shouldn’t be about balance, they should just be about ‘fun’” argument died along with “better graphics = better games” and the dodo. It is simply not an argument based on any form of reason. Balanced multiplayer doesn’t make any game less “fun”, those that think it does wouldn’t know if a game was balanced at a high level anyway.

      Deliberately aiming for or even ignoring balance in multiplayer will always make a game worse, no exceptions. That’s not to say the game can’t be interesting with poorly balanced multiplayer, or even that Cutom Armies will mean poor balance, but balance means greater depth, which means greater longevity for the game. 99% the work that goes into balancing multiplayer translates into a better single player experience anyway.

      Also we’re not all boorish homophoic oafs down here in Australia.

    • John Connor says:

      Haven’t you guys seen what this obsession with balance and turning RTS into esports has done to games? That’s why these DOTA and tower defence bullshit games are so popular, because the only way you can feasibly perfectly balance a game is by having like three units per player. I’m not saying balance isn’t important, I’m saying it shouldn’t be the focus of the game, otherwise we get bullshit like DoW II’s tiny ass armies.

      PS. If you think using “fag” as a descriptor is all that qualifies somebody as homophobic, I know a bunch of gay guys who are homophobic.

    • MD says:

      @ John Connor: And I know some black guys who use the word “nigger”, so let’s start throwing that one around too!

      Seriously, the fact that you use the word “fag” doesn’t mean you’re necessarily a homophobe. But its existence as an insult is based entirely on homophobia, and for that reason it’s a pretty nasty word to use, even if you intend it as a generic meaningless insult.

    • John Connor says:

      It’s only straight people, probably closet homophobes who still feel uncomfortable about homosexuals but don’t want to seem backwards, who get offended by this shit. Terms like faggot are much more offensive. Fag is just a generic insult stripped of its connotations, when was the last time you called someone a bastard, and actually meant to imply they were born out of wedlock? Get over it mate, it’s not even worth wasting these comments on.

    • Premium User Badge

      lowprices says:

      ‘It’s only straight people… who get offended by this shit’

      Not at all. I’m gay, and I’m quite offended.

      ‘Terms like faggot are much more offensive’

      And the root word of ‘fag’ is…?

      Also, your analogy about ‘bastard’ doesn’t work, because society has almost entirely moved beyond caring about whether people were born in or out of wedlock. The same isn’t true for being gay, which is why gay slurs haven’t been divorced of their context yet.

    • MD says:

      edit: this was in response to John Connor. lowprices beat me to it, and proved him wrong with a single example.

      I was trying to be nice about it and give you the benefit of the doubt, but you’re being extremely arrogant. Even if your judgment of the word’s connotations is entirely correct within the context of your own social circle, you’re speaking to a pretty diverse group of people here.

      You said yourself that ‘faggot’ is offensive. ‘Fag’ is unambiguously a shortened form of ‘faggot’. Are you really confident that everyone shares your conception of the difference between the two words?

      edit: also, what the heck? You threw around the word ‘fag’, and yet when I responded I made a point of acknowledging that you might not actually be homophobic. But because I asked you to stop, I’m ‘probably a closet homophobe’? That’s silly and unpleasant.

    • Abundant_Suede says:

      I’m offended by the Necron bashing in this thread. But then, I am a closet necrophobe.

    • LennyLeonardo says:

      Connor: I didn’t call you a homophobe, I only wanted you to stop using the word “fag” as a pejorative because it bothers me and, apparently, some other people here. Common courtesy etc.
      You’re likely to get this kind of backlash every time you use a slur like that on these boards, so you should probably give it a rest.

  5. McDan says:

    It’s got mega in, as long as the next word is “mek” and there are titans in the next one I will be very happy. Bring back the old massive battles from the first one! I don’t feel like my army is any good unless there are hundreds of dead enemies on the ground. I loved that about the first one.

    • Surgeon says:

      That’s exactly what I want too.
      Give me table top Adeptus Titanicus and Space Marine combined please.
      Thanks.

  6. DarkFenix says:

    And by “custom mega armies” they mean you can change a bunch of essentially cosmetic details about the 3 squads you have enough pop cap to field.

    Relic, give me a f***ing army to command, not a few bloody squads. Let me build a base and turtle if I want to. Give me strategic depth and choice. If I have the time and resources to build a million terminators, let me do so!

    • Ovno says:

      Please for the love of god, don’t do anything this man says…

      Base building – yawn the worst part of rts.
      Building a million terminators – ballanced?

      DoW 2 was like a breath of fresh air for strategies don’t go backwards please guys….

    • Giant, fussy whingebag says:

      No, what they mean is microtransactions for special skins, models and maybe even some units. They were so pleased with the success (was it successful?) of the Dark Angels DLC that they want to do the same thing for every army imaginable.

      What they mean by “trying to leverage even more so on the Games Workshop tabletop game” is they want to gouge you for every new unit and paint-job, just like they do in GW!

      Of course, this is all wild, baseless, pessimistic ranting, so don’t listen to me…

    • DrGonzo says:

      No bases, it makes absolutely no sense in 40k. More choice in your army certainly. But bringing back bases would make me a sad panda. Not all RTS games have to be Command and Conquer.

    • Qazi says:

      Tabletop ranges from 1k point skimishes to your 10k wars.
      DoW dealt with the large scale. DoWII dealt with the small scale.
      Both games beautifully captured different and perfectly valid aspects of the Warhammer 40k feel, whether you liked it or not. I also don’t know why you can’t see how limited pop cap can also provide strategic depth in planning an army.

      I for one would love another properly fleshed out DoW2. Fleshed out as in… Model the missing Armies, provide the /entire range/ of unit choice each Army should have, the entire gamut of Armoury options each unit could take with them, and more of those 1k-2k point scale battles with 3-10 squads that DoWII already deals with.
      … with the further option of expanding and scaling the unit cap to ALSO model the vast 10k-20k battles.
      This DoWIII news could amount to something quite delicious.

    • Quine says:

      All I want is for them to bring in the feel of buying your precious troops like in the tabletop game, and spending limited funds to resupply and reinforce them across missions as they get progressively scarred and/or awesome over the course of the campaign.

      Let me blow some points on a few trenches and emplacements when I need defend and perhaps a titan if I’m flush and the awesomeness will flow.

      None of this magically-appearing troops in mid-game, thx.

    • subedii says:

      I’m (largely) with Ovno and DrGonzo on this.

      DoW 2 didn’t need base building, the focus of the gameplay was on controlling the action in the field, not getting your Servitors to build another power generator.

      The whole point of building base structures in most RTS’s is to provide a sunk cost investment into teching. Which DoW2 still had, they just streamlined the process so you didn’t have to plonk down structures everywhere to do it. Instead each squad and its upgrades in itself is that investment. Bringing in Assault Marines in T1 will drastically delay your teching to T2, but those units may be just what you need to gain map control, and all the units will still be relevant as you progress through T2 and T3. Likewise, spending all your resources on hero upgrades can leave you with a powerful spellcaster or tank, but it forces you to play differently depending on how the rest of your army’s developed.

      In general I really liked how they implemented it in DoW2. Certainly preferred the style of multiplayer gameplay to Starcraft 2 (which will probably cause a few frowny faces to appear, but the reasons as to why would take a lot of typing).

      All that said, I wouldn’t necessarily be averse to an increased base presence in DoW 3, it just needs to be done intelligently, and NOT LIKE STARCRAFT OR C&C OR SUPCOM or other RTS’s. The focus still has to be on the in-field action, and whatever base building there is absolutely cannot be a focus which detracts from that, actings as a separate economic management aspect on the side. The very last thing I want to see in DoW 3 is where you’ve got to be clicking on your freaking base at 30 seconds, every 30 seconds on the dot, to queue up another worker unit.

      If they keep base management aspects more along the lines of impromptu fortifications and in-the-field structures to grant advantages (and likely, only specific to certain races like the IG), I could see it working. But I don’t want a forced attention split between base management and focussing on the combat, that’s not the direction that DoW should be following.

    • Barman1942 says:

      Eh, while DoW had base building it was still largely focused on the field. I enjoyed DoW 1 much more than DoW 2 because it actually gave you the sense and scale of a truly huge battle going down, instead of squad on squad action like in DoW 2. It was *especially* good with the Firestorm over Kronus mod.

    • age says:

      I don’t agree that base building is nothing but a resource or time sink in RTS’, or at least it shouldn’t have to be. In Warcraft 3 for example a well constructed base was an important part of your strategy for all races, and the differences in the strengths and weaknesses of the respective bases meant you had to construct all bases differently. Probably wouldn’t work for DoW in fairness, but done well base building can be an important and enjoyable feature in an RTS.

  7. Inigo says:

    Relic are apparently “trying to leverage even more so on the Games Workshop tabletop game”.

    They’re going to charge us £25 to use a 10-man Space Marine tactical squad?

    • Sceptrum says:

      And some extra £ for your colour of choice. Dark Angels Green, Blood Red, Space Wolves Grey, entire Citadel catalogue will be there…of course will one digital paint bucket be enough or do you have to buy some more?

    • jonfitt says:

      Use it quick, or it will suffer digital-drying-up and you’ll have to buy another pot!

    • Bilbo says:

      “They’re going to charge us £25 to use a ten man Space Marine tactical squad?”

      Did you play Dawn of War 2? You often only had about ten guys to control at a time.

    • Nick says:

      You completely missed the point/joke Bilbo.

  8. Vexing Vision says:

    Is that what they meant with going “MMO-appraoch”? It’s a free-to-play, purchase-per-unit game, and you know it.

    Then again, building and desiging armies is still, to me, the best part of WH40k, so I’m interested.

    • zergrush says:

      That would be awesome.

    • Retribution says:

      Relic said they’d continue with the MMO-experimentation depending on how well CoHO did…and they shut that down prematurely…so…no more MMO-ness outside of microtransactiosn?

    • Barman1942 says:

      “And you know it” What the fuck? They haven’t mentioned *anything* about it being free to play. All they’ve said it will be on an MMO scale, as in there will probably some online intergalactic conquest mode, and customizable armies.

  9. 4026 says:

    “leverage even more so on the Games Workshop tabletop game”

    That’s right! Now, when you want to add new units to your army, instead of tedious in-game economy management, you simply fire up the in-game store and pay real-world money for them! Just like the tabletop game!

    Seriously, though, this sounds exactly like a setup for some microtransaction shenanigans to me.

    EDIT: Goddamnit, ninja’d. Twice.

  10. Bhazor says:

    Please be a proper strategy game and not a Diablo-like. Please, please, please.

    • LuNatic says:

      A Diablo like 40k game? Me likey, but only if Dan Abnett writes the story. Start off as an interrogator, earn your inquisitorial rosette and then go prosecute the heretics, choosing team members to follow you on the way. Should you bind the daemonhost and be declared a rogue radical, or banish it and curry favour within the ordos?

      Relic/Games Workshop/THQ: make this game and I will buy it(If PC is the lead platform. Port down, not up).

    • coldvvvave says:

      DoW 2 SP was a Diablo-like game.

    • DrGonzo says:

      I think you’re muddled up. DoW 2 and it’s expansions were Diablo like. You just described a Baldurs Gate a like. But yeah, sounded like a great game!

    • Qazi says:

      DoW2′s campaigns were as much Strategy as they were Diablo-like.
      The Multiplayer/Skirmish was pure strategy. The Last Stand was pure love.
      So, um. What.

  11. Ian says:

    Talking about what’s in the game before you’ve even officially announced it.

    I love the announcement-of-an-announcement system.

  12. Ovno says:

    Please make the custom armies thing more like the points system from 40k!!!!!!!!!!

  13. lunarplasma says:

    Swerving another way entirely for the franchise… again!

    • Wilson says:

      Hehe, yeah. Part of me wishes they would settle down on a particular design (I’ve enjoyed both DOW1 and DOW2), but the rest of me is very glad that they are innovating somewhat and trying new things.

      It would be sad if we knew all that was coming was a slightly prettier version of DOW1 called DOW3, after already having had the almost the same DOW2 (this in an alternate time-line where they didn’t change the franchise at all after DOW1).

  14. Bilbo says:

    As a big fan of the tabletop game, the prospect of leveraging the tabletop game more in Dawn of War is hugely exciting

  15. Turin Turambar says:

    Relic are apparently “trying to leverage even more so on the Games Workshop tabletop game”.

    So every army will be a mini expansion and every special character DLC!

  16. Premium User Badge

    Monchberter says:

    So from the skirmish level that the DoW series made its own and distanced itself from the more ‘Command and Conquer / Starcraft’ ‘army’ sized combat, it’s effectively making its own version of the same now?

  17. Jake says:

    Sounds great, especially if there are a lot of customisation options. I would love to be able to make my own custom chapters and paint schemes. I had suspected that the main reason DoW was small scale and restricted was so that it didn’t tread on the toes of the actual miniature sales – unless it will cost £20 per 5 marines in the game as well. Although seeing as they don’t sell the epic scale stuff any more really, perhaps that would explain it.

  18. porps says:

    yay! Dow2 was such a let down for me after enjoying the huge battles of dow1. Hopefully they go back to letting us have vast roaming armies rather than a couple of squads moving from contrived cover spot to contrived cover spot. High hopes for this one!

    • Retribution says:

      What makes cover contrived?

    • 0p8 says:

      same her mate.
      DoW1 was the best Sci-Fi RTS ever imo.
      DoW2 and DoW2:Chaos Rising (not bothered with the other expansions) were dissapointing to say the least.
      Ive tried to give em countless other chances but just find them boring.
      I actually felt emotionally attached to my Blood Raven brothers in DoW1 and that was a huge aspect of the game i loved, but it was mainly the new direction the sequel game took, that was a major turn off for me.
      Didnt mind the rpg elements so much as the non existent base building which really pissed me off!
      Hope this redeems THQ to the high esteem i once held them at.

      @ Retribution.
      edit.
      yes he’s right, the cover was contrived. too much focus on it which means that you would have to play in a linear game style.

    • Retribution says:

      I assume you speak only of the single-player design? MP on the other hand is quite non-linear, given the opportunities and pay-off for flanking. Besides, being one of the underlying game mechanics, i don’t see any problem with focusing on cover; it certainly makes the game more interesting than your CnC massive blob v blob-fests

  19. DainIronfoot says:

    Then make Homeworld 3! Go oooooooooon.

    • Premium User Badge

      Hanban says:

      This man for president! \o/

    • iniudan says:

      I say make Homeworld: Battlefleet Gothic. =p

    • DainIronfoot says:

      As much as that idea is also brilliant, the setting, music and art design of Homeworld is a big part of it for me.. so more of that please.

    • IDtenT says:

      Only if they can do the setting justice. Homeworld has one of the richest histories I’ve experienced in a made-for-game world.

  20. Premium User Badge

    Daiv says:

    Perfect.

    In the grim darkness of the far future there is only WAR, not only SMALL SCALE TACTICAL BATTLES!

  21. psycho7005 says:

    Lol ‘Custom mega armies’? Why stop there? Why not have Custom mega, super-duper, awesome, giant, multi-coloured, dual-rainbowed armies. That’s the game i want.

  22. GHudston says:

    Would it be too much to just develop a PC version of the tabletop game? I suppose GW wouldn’t be able to flog it’s models at exponentially inflating prices if they did…

    • Quine says:

      I’m surprised there isn’t a serious effort to exactly match the tabletop lineup already- charge £x for a gorgeously-detailed shiny commander for your force? Some people would go for it, and they could make a ton of cash out of people tweaking their loadouts.

      For all that we all moan about DLC and microtransactions- how much would you pay for virtual miniatures? Provided they didn’t make the range obsolete fast like their boxed sets, of course…

    • Retribution says:

      There’s a virtual tabletop program with expansions for different tabletop games, GW forced them to shutdown the Warhammer and 40k versions. Can’t remember the name of the damn thing though…

    • Strange_guy says:

      -Retribution

      You’re thinking of vassal, though it still required you know and own the rules, still have to tell it what dice to roll etc.

  23. jonfitt says:

    I’d like a SupCom DoW, or even a closer replication of the tabletop game, but it sounds like:
    More squads and wargear in multiplayer?

    • subedii says:

      I love DoW 2. I loved SupCom 2.

      But man, I really do not want to see the two combined, with Dawn of War working to SupCom’s mechanics.

  24. Dave says:

    TITANS! and super heavy battle tanks and windrider hosts who close combat my fucking warlord titan to death which is a stupid rule anyway but ha my void missile hit your warlock titan what do you mean it missed cos of your holo-field well bollocks to this im playing tie fighter

  25. magnus says:

    I might buy DOW 2 next week, this is probably the push I need to make my mind up. Oh wait, I blow loads of £’s on the Steam-Sale this week, well, it’s still a maybe then. Hmm 60%/40% I guess.

  26. Vinraith says:

    I’ll believe it when I see it, but this has the capacity to be the 40K game I’ve always wanted.

  27. wodin says:

    I didn’t mind DoW 2 as you didn’t have to many untis to manage which suits me playing an RTS….I normally hate RTS with a vengence due to click fest etc….

    Now if they make DoW3 WEGO on a big scale then we will have something…but it wont happen…what we will have is loads of units to manage there by turning it into a click fest…

    • 0p8 says:

      lots of micro managing is what rts is all about (IMO).
      “click fest” makes it sound so negative.

    • Chris D says:

      I just picked up RUSE in the steam sale. I really like that it gives you time to think and plan and that you can leave your troops to get on with the job and not have to baby sit them.

      I especially like when you get to the end of the mission and and it shows you orders per minute. Usually I’m at about three and a half. I think one time I got up to four. Good times.

    • Zenicetus says:

      It’s possible to design a game with an “epic” scale, and still have it manageable like a squad-level game. That’s basically what the Total War games do; they just split big armies into manageable units, that get even more manageable with grouping assignments. I haven’t done a direct comparison, but I don’t think I’m doing any more clicking to control a big army in Shogun 2 than I do controlling tactical squads in DOW2.

    • iniudan says:

      I actually have harder time micromanaging DoW II then the original or Company of Heroes, mostly because I find the field of view to be way too small for the skirmish and multiplayer need (I am playing in 1920×1080 on a 24 inch screen, so it sure not a screen and resolution trouble). Also the higher number number of point to capture, along the lack of a full screen map where you can give order is a step back from Company of Heroes, it make multiple front operation and minor movement order more a pain then it should be.

      Really like the DoWII campaigns and Last Stand on the other end.

    • wodin says:

      I hate the old building mechanic in DoW and brought back for Retribution…Hate it with a vengence…games boil down to who can build the most units the fastest…thats another massive reason why I prefered DoW2 (well the first two anyway)…

      I remember reading a PC mag way back, must have been in about 2000, I can’t remember who was being interviewed but I do recall the article was about a Warhamer 40k MMO and it said you where going to be able to go to GW and buy vitrual armies for the game, same way people buy the lead\plastic figures.

      It never happened but we could have something similar here.

  28. Premium User Badge

    cairbre says:

    I was kinda hoping their August announcement would be Homeworld 3 or Company of Heroes 2. These dawn of war fans are being spoiled while the rest of us sit with fingers crossed

    • Werthead says:

      When they said on Twitter there’d be an announcement in August, they got a ton of responses saying, “HOMEWORLD 3!” and their answer was very much, “Ha ha, you crazy people, that wouldn’t make sense would it?” (once again raising the question of why the heck they bought the licence back), so this really wasn’t on the cards. Frankly, after Relic said, “Christ, HOMEWORLD had a complex interface didn’t it, modern gaming morons wouldn’t be able to hack it, fancing having to move your spaceship upwards,” (possibly paraphrased) a couple of years back, I’d be happy if they didn’t actually make HOMEWORLD 3 at all.

      COMPANY OF HEROES II is overdue though. No, it didn’t do as well as the DoW games, but it was still a big success for them and more than successful enough to warrant a sequel. Maybe the EASTERN FRONT mod for CoH1 and looking at what MEN OF WAR is doing elsewhere has killed their enthusiasm for it, but it seems a very logical step for them to take and I’m surprised they’re still not going for it.

    • Jim Rossignol says:

      The stupid thing about the big studio model is that actually a smaller studio could probably remake a game like Homeworld to a quite acceptable level, without shooting for contemporary AAA content spangles, and release it to a hungry audience to turn a small profit. The large pubs basically can’t/won’t think like that and would rather sink more resources into larger profits to turn over large amounts of cash.

  29. TormDK says:

    Hell, I still have table top minies worth 300 quid that I haven’t painted because I haven’t had the time. I wouldn’t mind a computer based table top game where I could buy models and play with my friends online instead of the table top which I’ll never get to play because I don’t have the time to setup the minis.

  30. Pijama says:

    *obligatory “MAKE INQUISITOR ASAP PLZ” here*

  31. Kent says:

    What they fail to realize is that you don’t really need to be able to customize the paint job on your jetpacks in order for it to be a good Warhammer game. First of all they need to make sure that’s it’s an enjoyable RTS, then they move on to make more gimmicks for the games.

  32. molten_tofu says:

    The (potential) microtransactions online for units couldn’t be as expensive / painful as the microtransactions at my local hobby shop could they…?

    And didn’t magic the gathering try something like this at some point?

  33. innociv says:

    Dawn of War 2 was the opposite of Epic..

    It was like a very simplified Company of Heroes.

  34. ulix says:

    How can they even be doing a game like this? A strategy game? Seriously?

    It’s so not contemporary. No one will buy it. It will be a financial failure.

  35. LennyLeonardo says:

    About the whole balance debate: 40k and its tabletop brethren were always about highly personalised, asymmetrical armies fighting. In fact, you could say that painting and customising your guys was half the game.
    They managed to balance stuff (more or less) by giving every bit of wargear etc. a points value and putting a cap on how many points you spend on your army. Why couldn’t Relic manage the same here?

    Edit: Sorry for talking about GW games in the past tense but, well… you know

  36. Iskariot says:

    I hated DOW2. Should never have bought it.
    It disappointed me on every level except the graphics.

    I still play DOW1. Superb game.

    I need more info before I get my hopes up about this third DOW game.
    If it’s skirmisch AI is just as useless as that of DOW2, then they can stick it.

    And I want base building back.
    Bases are excellent and natural, realistic strategic targets.

    • TormDK says:

      There isn’t really that much, if any, basebuilding in tabletop Warhammer 40K – except as a mission scenario and I liked the fact that they didn’t try to be StarCraft with DoW2.
      So I’m hoping they continue with the DoW2 direction, but on a larger scale if needed (It isn’t really IMO, although it would be nice if we could be limited by the guidelines given by the tabletop rulebook)

    • Jim Rossignol says:

      I’ve no interest in base-building, but I’d rather DoW’s camera had zoomed out, rather than zoomed in. Something with a few hundred units, if not a few thousand, is where it needs to go.

  37. DeuceMojo says:

    Dear Space Marines,

    Your grotesquely oversized armor makes your tiny heads look ridiculous. Just sayin’.

    Yours,

    Marcus Fenix & Dominic Santiago

    • mejoff says:

      Hi Marcus
      Your enormous chin makes your brain-pan look tin… oh, sorry, your brain pan is tiny and your chin is normal… no wait, your brain pan is tiny and your chin is huge.

      Also, if you had proper armour you wouldn’t need your world to be covered in generic waist high cover.

      All our love

      The Space Marines

  38. FRIENDLYUNIT says:

    No, I quite liked DOW2 and the different direction to DOW1, and indeed games like Starcraft.

    Also, honestly, if I wanted to play the tabletop game then I would. They did a great job of making a game appropriate for the medium and I’d hate to see them die in a ditch – just for the goal of compromising that.

    If they take a GW stance on attempting to ream money out of me however I’ll actually be grateful.

    Although I have a case of 40k fever I dont play tabletop for that reason and if they do that too I’ll be so disgusted I’ll never look at the “franchise” again, which will save me money (as I wont buy DOW3 or Spacemarine for example) and it will also free up my time for other games.

  39. 1R0N_W00K13 says:

    If they are making it like the tabletop, why not implement the points system? To satisfy people who prefer smaller scale, tactical battles, have “500 or 1000 point games” (limited by the pop cap) and then go up progressively from there. It could really work if done right.