DoW II Preview in Russian Magazine (Igromania)

[Wrapper]

Some bits and pieces from Dow II Preview in May issue of Russian PC gaming magazine Igromania.

This is just a summary of key points as I don't feel like translating the entire preview for obvious reasons. Overall the preview is very positive and Relic is touted as one of the best RTS developers ever :-)

-- DoW II is boldly defined as RTS 2.0 and it is definitely not going to be just a shinier DoW clone based on a new engine (quite unlike SC II).

-- There will be two campaigns (cooperative mode supported): one for Space Marines and one for Orks. There will be no campains for other [tentatively possible] race(s). The author humbly expresses his hope that DoW II will feature nids :-)

-- Depending on complexity missions are divided into red (hard), blue (medium), and green (easy). Besides mission objectives there will be long-term goals that will require completion of several missions (and a certain set of objectives thereof). These long-term goals may be completed in different ways and mission sequencing is up to the player.

-- There will be hidden missions that may be unlocked if certain time and quality criteria were met when completing previous mission objectives.

-- There will be no base building whatsoever. Here's a direct quote: "I.e., you will not have to build bases at all." I wonder if there still may be some pre-set bases (however rudimentary). But it also makes sense to note that it has not been stated whether this whole "no-bases" thing applies to both campaign and skirmish / multiplayer.

-- Each unit in a squad will have their own name, look and specialization.

-- Unit specialization is configurable. Configuration is not based on the player choosing from a defined list of options. Instead, unit specialization depends on what artifacts and objects (that can be acquired on the battlefield) they are equipped with.

-- You can take up to six squads per mission. It might mean that you can try a stupidly heroic option of taking on a red mission with just one squad :-). And it most likely means that there will be more than six squads to choose from prior to any given battle.

-- All squad leaders have to survive in order for you to complete a mission.

-- Some missions will require you to make choices such as whether you try to save as many civilians as possible or try to grab some new equipment instead. And there will be consequences so think hard :-)

-- The primary focus is on infantry. Vehicles will be powerful but few and far between. Air and naval units are not in.

-- Scale of all buildings, vehicles, units and objects looks very natural.

-- Buildings can be garrisoned. Buildings and terrain objects can be destroyed (in a stragegic way such as to block / form paths and make new cover areas). New craters will provide cover too.

-- Jump packs will allow jumping on top of almost any building. But it has not been said whether higher ground will provide any strategic advantage...

-- Superior graphics and phisics. Essence Engine 2.0 and Havok. 'Nuff said :-)

The game completion rate is given as 60% (don't know if this is just the preview author's assumption or an estimate given by Relic).

That's pretty much it. I hope you enjoy it even though most of the information might not be anything new by now.

Oh yes, there is also a nice DoW II poster depicting a Blood Raven tactical marine with a hand bolter and a warhammer so if you happen to live in Russia go get that magazine :-)

:Hail: Relic :-))

[Vijil]

Awesomesauce. Confirmation of what I'd hoped for. It's about time for someone to shake up the RTS genre, and who better than relic?

[Weavern]

Not to keen on this 'no bases' thing. Really hoping this is just space marine campaign. At the very least we're starting to see some major repetition and solid information about the marine campaign.

[Imperial Dane]

Well considering that most of the info seems to revolve around the space marine campaign, i hope so as well that the no buildings is for that alone. I mean i can imagine it for the space marine campaign, but the orks ? They don't exactly do it out of a battle barge you know.

Plus the no building thing doesn't exactly match with some of the other information we have..

[Vijil]

"They don't exactly do it out of a battle barge you know"

They do it out of a space hulk or somesuch, using dropships. It's close enough.
I too am wondering how it'll work though.

Wrapper, what came just before "I.e., you will not have to build bases at all." ? Sounds like there's more info there...

[Supernaut]

Why wouldn't you want an Ork campaign? :(

Gorgutz is a pretty good character while I wouldn't mind another Blood Raven campaign, I just think yeah yeah SM are okay 'n' all but I want me some Orky loving ;p
Comic relief race they may be, I still enjoy playing as them hehe.

Other than that I am liking the sound of DoW II, seems to me like a bigger scale Warhammer 40k: Squad Command.

[Weavern]

Could very well be that you dont build bases. But you're given 2 or 3 buildings to start a game (campaign aside) which are all your troop building buildings.

[Vijil]

You mean drop pod them.

Pre supplied buildings would probably be armory for wargear, Medic station since these guys aren't cheap, and maybe deployable turrets.

Chances are the base would often just be a parked thunderhawk.

[Octopus Rex]

Buildings have long been one of the biggest suspensions of disbelief in this genre "oh, so your Mars Pattern Command is RIGHT on the frontlines?.....and its TINY!!" Build times of vehicles has always been odd too, though DOW managed to change a few races build times into 'delivery' times by using sneaky graphics.

Maybe that's what they're thinking? Dunno, just a thought. Probably already been said somewhere in the pages and pages of DOW2 threads though!

[Riess]

Great insight into the campaign model. Sounds very good overall.

[kromotaur]

-- The primary focus is on infantry. Vehicles will be powerful but few and far between. Air and naval units are not in.

That sums it up for me(not to mention no bases at all)...I'm not gonna buy DoW2.
wow, what a huge disappointment and waste of potential. :banghead:

[Wrapper]

Wrapper, what came just before "I.e., you will not have to build bases at all." ? Sounds like there's more info there...

Vijil, this bit is embedded in the part of the preview that deals with the campaign. Before that statement the author says (direct word-by-word translation) "And now the most interesting part. Micromanagement* is now retired." Then he goes on to say: "I.e., you will not have to build bases at all." And after that statement he says "In the very beginning of the game you are given a certain number of elite** squads which you will have to last with till the very end."

Disclaimers

* I think that the author has a very narrow understanding of micromanagement. He appears to think that micromanagement = base building :-) Whatever you make of that..

** "Elite" is a very loose definition here. The author obviously thinks that all Space Marine units can be classified as elite. Now I will say that a Tactical Space Marine is elite complared to your rank and file guardsman but he is not so elite when compared to a Mega-Armored Nob :-)

[Unsung Duck]

I like how each memeber in the squad is going to be unique induvidual. I'll look forward to seeing that.

I think we might have pre-built bases, rather than having to build them.

[Wrapper]

Why wouldn't you want an Ork campaign? :(

Supernaut, the way the author put it in the preview it sounded like there are two separate campaigns revolving around the same conflict area(s). I think it means that we're just going to be given an option to play as opposing sides (either SM or Orks) in one and the same epic conflict.

I very much want an Ork campaign :-)

[Supernaut]

Back in the day RTSs like Age of Empires etc, micromanagement usually referred to obtaining resources, construction buildings etc, micro being derived from Microcosm :)

Not the kind of micromanagement we see nowadays though of course, which btw click-spam-fests I do not enjoy haha.

When he says "In the very beginning of the game you are given a certain number of elite squads which you will have to last with till the very end." - He could literally mean that they are truly Elite squads, for example if you lose a squad then its gone forever, no replacement for it.

While the information you've given us is great, certainly for me the game sounds like its heading in the right direction, I shall wait for more info before pledging my soul to it. :)


Supernaut, the way the author put it in the preview it sounded like there are two separate campaigns revolving around the same conflict area(s). I think it means that we're just going to be given an option to play as opposing sides (either SM or Orks) in one and the same epic conflict. I was referring to a comment made by Weavern.
Orks Orks ORKS ORKS!!

[Frankie7508]

I sounds like we might get an amazing, fluffy SP campaign. No buildings in SP is a godsend. It gets rid of the monotony of building the same base EVERY single mission, which you did even in the original DOW campaign. I'm extremely excited; however, I'm not so excited if all of this carriers over to every multiplayer mode. A battle barge mode like Weavern has mentioned several times would be awesome alongside a more traditional mode. DOW2 is shaping up quite nicely.

[Eisenhorn538]

I agree with Frankie. I dig a a fluffy campaign with a more squad based approach to the space marines as well as tons of wargear to loot. Even no bases will be fine

BUT...

I will be very disappointed if they carry the same stuff over to MP, especially the "no bases" thing.

[Noble]

Again, they haven't said flat out that there won't be any base buildings, just that the player won't have their hand in constructing them. It's very possible that they might use a system similar to Battle for Middle Earth II, where you have one central building that you start out with and use for upgrades, requisitioning units, etcetera. That wouldn't pose a problem at all in multiplayer and certainly wouldn't equate to a system similar to table top where you pick your forces before the game starts.

[Richdog]

-- There will be no base building whatsoever. Here's a direct quote: "I.e., you will not have to build bases at all." I wonder if there still may be some pre-set bases (however rudimentary). But it also makes sense to note that it has not been stated whether this whole "no-bases" thing applies to both campaign and skirmish / multiplayer.

-- Each unit in a squad will have their own name, look and specialization.

-- All squad leaders have to survive in order for you to complete a mission.

Great. All squad leaders having to survive for you to complete a mission? Is that even remotely realistic and fluffy, do space marines fail a massion just because their squad leader dies? No, it's just a completely contrived gameplay element that I can see causing endless reloads. The more I hear about this game the less I look forward to the SP experience... and god knows what the skirmish is going to be like. :spartaaa:

[Hirmetrium]

Richdog, remember these are probably and DoW2 is probably in pre-alpha stage. Things like that, at that stage, are extremely subject to change and dependant on game testing. It may be deemed in QA or some other development stage that its too hard, but that is their situation for the moment.

Nothing mentioned so far is cement. For all we know, gauging the reaction of fan's on these forums, Relic may have decided to attempt and rework base building in - or its already in the multiplayer.

Also, I think its an important note that Theres only a campaign for SM and Orks - Considering we don't know what the other races are yet, you can't really say they do/don't have campaigns, and its still entirely possible he mis-understood.

We can only really wait until June now. The Open House reports may shed some light (but this is highly unlikely due to NDA, I don't know maybe Relic want us to circulate how absolutely mega awesome DoW2 is and you should all start saving now) and theres still E3 to go yet, which will definately feature DoW2 if THQ is there, so gameplay videos, developer commentary and english insight are likely. (Remember things can become servely warped or misunderstood when being translated, an unfortunate issue of the language barrier).

I'm still reserving judgement - until I hear base building is out for multiplayer, I won't comment. Until we hear more about...anything besides the Space Marine campaign, nothing is particularly clear just yet.

[the_hunger]

The preview is quite interesting. Thanks. We'll just have to see about the base-building issue. I think that it's fine to leave it out of the the SP campaign, since rebuilding bases in the campaigns of DC and SS got quite old very quickly. However, I generally do not like the idea of pre-selecting units and upgrades BEFORE a skirmish match (a la "Mark of Chaos"). It just seems to take some of the "real-time" out of real-time strategy. I like it best when you have to think, strategize, and build an army based on unfolding events on the battlefield and not based on the army that you are stuck with because of some pre-selection process. I suppose that we will just have to wait and see how this turns out.

[Fightingfirst]

Sounds good, keeps getting better and better. Does anyone know when there will be any official up dates because since DOW2.com started it has said video:coming soon, I judged soon to be like a week not months.

[cannonfodder]

Sounds very RTT. Which is fun and all, but I think I'll stick to Strategy.

Overall, I hope the remaining 40% (estimated) will change enough. Afterall, these things aren't set in stone yet.

[Supernaut]

Strategy =
A strategy is a long term plan of action designed to achieve a particular goal, most often "winning". Strategy is differentiated from tactics or immediate actions with resources at hand. ...Tactics =
The maneuvering and deploying of troops before, during, and after an engagement to accomplish the objectives of strategy.

Think I prefer Tactics, sounds ever more exciting than strategy. :P
And on that bombshell, seems most of us are already playing a Tactical game rather than a Strategic one.

Risk is more of a strategy game. :)

[Thuraash]

I actually like the idea of zero base building. That doesn't mean you're stuck pre-ordering everything, though. You can probably requisition units and upgrades from space and have them dropped in to you. All that this means is that you have no base on the actual field of battle. It's still quite possible for you to still have most of the functionality of a base off-site. I think that's awesome, especially if they do away with tech trees and such and just assign everything a tactical points cost, with various requisition times.
Kinda like you have in WiC, but very different, because WiC has a pre-assigned cap that will never increase. With DoW II, I'm betting they'll boost your req based on map control or other similar factors to keep players aggressive and reward dominating your opponent, but not cripple you if you're on the losing side so you can still put up a good fight.

[kabriel]

ya I think no base building is a blessing as long as we can build defensive structures ( healing centers , repair centers turrets ,sentries). I always hated when I was playing coh and this one jeep goes up to your base and starts harrasing your engineers .it was really annoying .also it slowed the game down. so putting the base outside the map would be better.

besides from what we heard sbout the game , the gameplay is going to be complex .so no need to complicate it more .since the player would probably spend most of his/her time on the frontline.

[HM_Cassius]

I am concerned that no other races are mentioned... if it is just orks vs sm, this game will phase out before it touches the internet....

[Jivebologna]

Something else to keep in mind is that this is the first preview to say that losing any squad leaders results in mission failure. All other previews have said that this changes the game, but does not 'end' it.

And as far as strategy goes, I'd much rather choose flanking options and creating overlapping fields of fire instead of "Hmmmmm, if I build the Mars Pattern here, I won't be able to get the Baneblade out...." That's right up there with building farms in front of towers in WC3.

[yetanotherplayer]

This being a metamap campaign, mission failure likely does not result in campaign failure.

[Jivebologna]

Ah yeah, that's also a good point. From the looks of things though, failure won't end the game, but it will have lasting consequences (instead of repeating the mission). Frankly, I think there are entirely too many changes to really take a solid love or hate position on the game. No matter what Relic releases, it's going to be.... different. I can, if nothing else, at least appreciate the innovation :).

[Shuma]

I don't even know what to think of this. Sounds... interesting, and horrible at the same time.

[Smit1000]

This doesn't sound like Dawn of War 1 with new shiny graphics but sounds like Chaos gate with more shiny graphics (with turn based replaced with real time).

Relic have to be careful not to copy Chaos gate. While that is a good game, its not multiplayer friendly like dow1 was. Relic has to also be careful not to move away from the Dawn of War 1 formula, which was so successful.

[gorays]

Relic is moving away from DOW 1 formula, and moving onto COH formula, which was way more sucessful than DOW 1, so it's more of a good thing than a bad thing. :)

[the_hunger]

That doesn't mean you're stuck pre-ordering everything, though. You can probably requisition units and upgrades from space and have them dropped in to you. All that this means is that you have no base on the actual field of battle. It's still quite possible for you to still have most of the functionality of a base off-site. I think that's awesome, especially if they do away with tech trees and such and just assign everything a tactical points cost, with various requisition times.
If they do it like that, then that would be okay with me. You would still have a base, but it would just be offsite, and I imagine unassailable by the enemy. This raises, of course, another issue: Will skirmishes be only about killing off the entire army of the other guy, since there will apparently be no bases to construct or destroy? I assume that holding territory will matter, but lack of bases will seem to make this game primarily about offensives and rushes. I don't know; I guess we'll see.

[Smit1000]

Relic is moving away from DOW 1 formula, and moving onto COH formula, which was way more sucessful than DOW 1, so it's more of a good thing than a bad thing.

COH (which I have played alot, love the game) has base building, tech trees etc. Chaos gate gave you a few squads (which were NAMED, each marine different) which could be given weapons found on the battle field, who carried over to the next level.

So far DOW 2 sounds alot like Chaos Gate!

I really think Relic do not want DOW 2 to be anything like COH. They don't want DOW 2 to be called a COH clone in space. This thinking could make DOW 2 nothing like DOW 1, because COH is very much like DOW1.

[Kaldaris]

"No base building at all" is contradictory to what previews from PCgamer and other media say. Which is that Base building HASN'T been removed, but has been reduced.

[NeoHunter]

No base building eh?

Now imagine Luke Skywalker screaming "Nooo~!!" when Darth Vader beheaded Obi-Wan Kenobi on the Death Star.

[Frankie7508]

After looking at Noble's thread with the compilation of the magazine articles we've seen thus far.....I really don't know what to think.

[Techlology]

Hmm, I really don't like the no base building thing, I'm hoping it'll just be for the campaign. But overall I'm getting more and more excited about this game with each preview!

[Shuma]

This is quickly becoming a non-rts game. And i don't like that, i played DoW because it was an RTS, not because it was WH40k, i had never heard of WH40k before DoW. This is a very risky move by relic, i hope DoW 2 doesn't end in a spartan pit.

[ricolikesrice]

the no-base building thing is good in my book, obviously tastes are different though and who knows how it ll be in MP/skirmish....

what worries me however is the focus on loot.
when i read the first preview with "there s gonna be items to equip your troops" i thought "well okay, sounds good that over time you could give your squad sergeants plasma pistols etc etc......

but all the recent previews and this talk of "different coloured rare and epic items" really worries me.

here s hoping the previews exaggerated the importance of loot and we wont see "my squad of tactical marines has epic bolters +3 with ice damage enchants and power armor +3 with knockback immunity" bullshit.

i could forgive base-building in DoW1 even if it doesnt suit the fluff, but space marines turning into Adeptus Diablo Astartes would be a major turn off.

[fs_xyz]

Try to play Ground Control 1st.
That game is a RTS without base building. If you like it, you probably won't have problem in adapting DOW2.
Regarding equipment.... Yeah, remind me of Chaos Gate and X-Com series.
Whatever, I am waiting this game. Along with Majesty 2 for next year.

Unless this global energy crisis will cause WW3 first....

[Thuraash]

ricolikesrice:
I think that was more an issue of the writer not knowing what he was talking about. Having seen all the English previews so far, it seems more like it's the MISSIONS that are color-coded based on difficulty, and not the loot itself. Incidentally, that reviewer (I think it was the same one...) referred to Dreadnoughts as Behemoths and Juggernauts, but never as Dreadnoughts, lol. Anyway, I wouldn't be all that concerned.

The other thing is that it's looking a lot like base building consists of readying your battle-barge, which is off-site, as opposed to building a base on the ground. It seems like your battle barge is persistent in the campaign, too, which sounds just awesome. No more base building and entry-level units also means no more ramp-up. The battle's on from square one. That's actually what World in Conflict did, and it works great! Fewer units, more tactical options, fewer distractions. I'm not suggesting to copy WiC (and it doesn't at all look like they are, really), but it's definitely somewhere to look for inspiration for good ideas/gameplay mechanics.

FYI, I'm a fan of the Ground Control series, World in Conflict, CoH and DoW. The only RTS/RTT games I don't like are those in the vein of SC/WC. I used to like C&C back in the day... so yeah, I've played a lot of several different types of strategy games, and getting rid of the bases, like in WiC and GCII definitely shifted the focus entirely to combat, and made the games much better for it. In CoH, I always hated the base building/management aspects.

Here's something I'm probably going to take flak for: what if the battle barge in Skirmish was also persistent? You could build it up by fighting people with battle barges at similar stages of development for points to spend on it, fight up or fight down against people with superior/inferior barges for different winnings, etc. The better barge doesn't need to give you a very significant advantage, but maybe just open up more and different tactical options to play with (different wargear available for some units, maybe different tech/units open up with certain barge upgrades/modules?), or give you an incremental edge over opponents with inferior barges. Not like levelling in MMOs, though, where level can determine who wins; just a small improvement to give a sense of accomplishment, and maybe a nice visual boost to make it look like you've accomplished something. Basically, a good player with a base-level barge should still beat a mediocre player with a high-level barge, but would have more options and would thrash them a little bit harder if they were on the same level. It adds a level of persistence, so you have YOUR battle barge assigned to your profile that you're working to develop, hence, building a connection between yourself and the game in the long-term. It'll also cement people to a single army, which is good in that people will learn how to play well, hopefully, but it also has some obvious disadvantages. Anyway, thoughts?

Edit: Just to clarify what I'm trying to say about the barge:
At the risk of putting this in MMO terms, your barge is your avatar, your units and abilities are part of that barge. What units to spend your req points or whatever to bring down are your call, and it can take different amounts of time to bring different units down, depending on balance considerations. Maybe the barge should have only a limited number of certain troops, like Terminators, but unlimited for others, like Slugga Boyz. Alternatively, it could be limited for everything, but some are just really cheap to get lots of squads in the barge for, like lower-level Orks, while it would be hard to assemble more than a few squads of Terminators or even more than a couple Predators. That way, you keep the named/storied commanders with unique individual traits, as well as pre-customized squads suited to different roles (tankbusting, support/suppression, anti-infantry strike/flanking squads to make 'em dead, etc), while at the same time, you can have a variety of troops waiting in orbit.
Another interesting mechanic would be for the barge to have variable space, so if you want a match where you won't run out of troops, the barge can be huge, but if you want a more cautious match where you'll have to watch what troops you have left and make sure you don't muck yourself up for the late game by losing too many troops early in risky attacks for map control and running dry, you can limit the amount of units that the barge can hold. Limiting barge capacity in Skirmish lets you force players to adjust who to bring into orbit based on what race they're facing, and maybe have a flex set for when it's random, or hidden.
"I'm facing Orks... do I think they'll go for CQC, or shooty? Do I bring a few extra heavy fire support squads to try and chew them up or pin them down before they get to me, or bring more Assault Space Marines and Assault Terminators to just brawl it out in close combat instead? Do I keep a mix at the ready in the barge for versatility, and risk being forced to change tactics midway due to losses?"
Obviously, losses in skirmish/multiplayer won't be permanent, and you'll get all your units/wargear etc back for next time. It would royally stink, to have your whole army wiped.

[Octopus Rex]

Well, like with many things in life, it's not WHAT you do, but HOW you do it that really makes the difference.

It can often be quite difficult to tell what it is that makes the difference "well, no bases in THIS game sucks, but no bases in this OTHER game seems fine....hmmm", the delicate mix of the ingredients is generally where the artistry comes in. Anyone can rouglhy copy all the design elements of DOW and still make a game that sucks. The WAY in which they implement these things, the finer details, the pacing, the visuals, the style, the control system, the importance (or lack) of different design elements/features, the balance, these things hardly come across in reviews, and you can't tell at ALL from previews.

So what's my point? Well, I guess it's just that we'll have to wait and see.

"Hey there's no base building and I thought that would suck, but y'know, even though I already thought I wouldn't like it they seemed to have pulled it off and it's really good."

[Vijil]

Octopus Rex is right, we can't rule the game out just because Relic has mashed up a genre (which is what they're best at). Try it before coming to big old judgements. If anyone can pull something like this off, it's Relic.

Thuraash: good points all, very well thought out. I'd like a game like that.

Incidentally the upgradeable battle barge thing could explain away the "contradictions" in the reviews... ...Mein gosh, imagine if Relic turned their post Homeworld knowledge and amazing game design ability to a BattleFleet Gothic game... I would sh!t my pants with glee! 40k space RTT :O

[Frankie7508]

In the US PCGamer it explicitly stated that the co-op camapaign was for Orks, Sm, AND the other unannounced races as well, which confuses me. It said something to the effect that you could take your favorite race through the campaign in addition to the Orks and SM. I think we will have to wait to hear from Relic for any clear answer. Let the prayers to the Buggod begin.

[gorays]

Maybe Buggo can clarify this confusion?

[Noble]

Buggo is currently pursuing other opportunities. Relic has stated that they plan to keep in touch with the community though. Relic loves sekritz, so we probably won't get much inside information at this point. Keep your eyes peeled for their posts in the future.

Or you could go to the open house and get a sneak peek :p

[cmstophe]

Sounds like we'll only have two races from this information.


Not to keen on this 'no bases' thing. Really hoping this is just space marine campaign. At the very least we're starting to see some major repetition and solid information about the marine campaign.
__________________


Me neither. This is lame IMO. What about multiplayer? Tech trees? How will this work?

[Frankie7508]

The US PCGamer said that, while Relic refused to state which races would appear, it was relatively safe to assume that there would indeed be other races in addition to SM and Orks.

[Imperial Dane]

Well this information is confusing and i hope we get some clear answers from Relic soon as to the whole buildings deal, especially since we have conflicting statements regarding that bit, and while i don't mind a no buldings bit, and it could be fun in the campaign, i can't help but feel dissapointed by this talk, i mean i like the buildings in DoW, there was no greater fun than bringing down the concrete bunkers of the guard or blasting down the space marine buildings. SO i dunno, i'd say we'd best wait for some more information and a better explanation as to what exactly is going to happen IF buildings aren't in.

[Shinova]

About buildings and tech trees: I've played a lot of RTS games over the years and it's come to the point where the only time I like buildings and tech trees are if they allow me to build vast colossal fortresses like in Total Annihilation and Supreme Commander. Most other games have a few token defenses and leave you with something more like a wimpy outpost. Basically if you're gonna do buildings, do them all the way. It's like the saying: Work hard, play hard.

Eventually I get tired of build orders, building placement, and so on. Good god, build orders. No more, please. Every single DoW game has its requisite time period where you do nothing but follow a variant of one or another build order, a set of actions that are repeated every game every time that must be followed for the real action---the actual fighting---to even begin. And if you happen to mess up along the line you could lose the game, and I didn't play a wargame to lose at economy or logistics, rather than strategy and tactics.

World of Conflict was a refreshing change for me. You just drop your troops, run out and start mixing with the enemy right away. At the very, very least DoW 2 and WoC will be totally different from every other RTS-genre games.

[FerociousBeast]

I'm loving the no base thing, and I agree that the RTS genre needs to be shaken up, but this isn't how I'd do it.

As others have said, this is Chaos Gate 2, not DoW 2. Don't get me wrong, I loved Chaos Gate and would love to see a real sequel. But I also loved DoW and would love to see a real sequel to it as well.

But, but (I caution myself), wait for the multiplayer details...

[Imperial Dane]

And we still don't know if the buildings are in or out, but i will agree with the bit that taking out buildings doesn't make it a DoW 2, it makes it something else, and i don't mind shaking things up.. on the other hand i don't want parts that i liked taken out, i mean they could try to make it different and more interesting instead of opting to take it out.

[LoRd KoRn]

I bet that you will have to take certain bildings/places on the map to obtain new units during the game a bit like the game "Z" if someone remembers that. So strategic points would not dissappear but have a new role.

[Infidelicious]

Personally I've always felt building soldiers and tanks yards away from the enemy is fantastically stupid. Hopefully, you have a LZ or road, like where you call off map reinforcements in CoH. This would make more sense, AND force you to defend a spot for the people who just can't live without being tied down to a starting area.

Teching / Tiers / researching is dumb, it's ruins the suspension of disbelief and is purely a gimmick for slowing the game down and poorly ensuring that every unit has a time where it's useful.

[Octopus Rex]

Just out of curiosity - why do all you building lovers love buildings? What is it about them that you'll miss if they aren't there?

Most people who think it might be good that there's no base-building seem to have given their reasons, but I just can't seem to find why people want to keep it.

Note: no base building does not necessarily mean "pre-select your force", there are many ways to skin this particular cat!

[Eisenhorn538]

@Infidelicous

Yes, because an RTS that is set in a universe with daemons and psyker powers has got to be realistic doesn't it? :rolleyes:

I'm all for a cut down on buildings as long as they aren't removed completely. Some races (IG says hi) actually make sense having them on the front lines from both a gameplay and fluff standpoint.

[cannonfodder]

Rex: It was stated a few times I believe. Buildings make economy a lot more important. You need to defend it, it can be damaged/lost, it makes you decide wheter to watch your units or your base, and so on. You can also switch your army build on the fly, adapting to the situation. It adds some depth that a pure-unit encounter lacks.

[Octopus Rex]

Thanks cannonfodder - I looked back over the thread but couldn't really spot anything, but there's lots of discussion crossover with other threads so maybe it's been said there.

"You can also switch your army build on the fly, adapting to the situation." - seeing as how little we know about the multiplayer I wouldn't say this necessarily excluded with no base-building.

[Shaitan]

As long as there's some sort of competitive balanced aspect to multiplayer, base building is not necessary. I think people's (including my) fears with lack of base building is that it would entail some sort of awkward or unintuitive form of teching and resource managment if there weren't buildings.

I like the idea of teching via buildings (even if there are only a few) as well as researching upgrades. I'm not excited with the idea of having everything at the beginning of the game. There needs to be some means of teching and what not. Early skirmishes with lower quality units and then progressing up the tech tree is fun (imo). It seems like bases is the best way to facilitate this. They may very well have a very intuitive way of teching that does not need bases. I guess we'll have to wait and see.

[Tyconius]

@Rex: Buildings are also extra art sets:

- Buildings themselves: perhaps for human races it's quite easy to imagine them, but for xenos races it's quite interesting to see them actually portrayed. There isn't a lot of fluff on them, and it's quite fun to see them in the game.

- Building animations: Drop pods, drop cranes, warp spires, wraithbone,... Awesome stuff. Dow has some of the best building animations ever.

- The builders themselves: Again, for some less fleshed out races, it's nice to see the builders displayed ingame and having extra fluff on how a particular "could" have it's buildings build.

[Thuraash]

OK, I know you all see MASSIVE WALL OF TEXT! Go ahead and read only the first line or two of each paragraph, if you want. Really, the rest is details and elaboration.

Cannonfodder: I'm assuming you're talking about multiplayer. Really, even the most rigid battle-barge system would allow for more on-the-fly flexibility and allow you to be more responsive to emerging threats than the traditional base/teching approach. I know, you're like "WTF are you on about, nutcase?!" Let me explain why I made that claim. Bear with me:

You can't always switch your build on the fly in DoW, as you imply. If you commit to a build, but your opp chose a build that counters yours, chances are you're up a creek unless it's the really early game, in which case you MAY pull off a fast switch. In my experience, by the time you get the necessary structures, prereqs etc. to actually crank out the new units, and have the upgrades to make them competitive with the build your opp already committed to, your forces have been mowed down and the enemy is redecorating your base.

I'm going to turn your argument around on you: battle barges, even with a fixed, pre-customized army on board, dropping in fully formed and reinforced units allow for MORE flexibility to change up your strategy on the fly than traditional base/tech-tree games. That is, of course, based on the assumption that the army you put on the barge allows for that, which puts the ball in your court. While we don't know how the barge system works, and it may, for all we know, house production facilities, or be able to requisition new squads that initially weren't on board with from a mothership or what have you, I'm going to go for the most restrictive option that I see as possible: a pre-defined army sitting on your barge, that can be brought to the surface piecemeal using req.

Even with that restrictive system, you can still build an army that can respond to various builds, and drop in something totally different at a moment's notice. Need a predator in a pinch? Drop that one you're thanking your lucky stars you put on the barge in. "ACK! They're killing me in Melee!" Drop in some of your assault marine squads. No pre-reqs, no upgrades you'll need to get on-site to make them competitive, no half-baked squads emerging, needing reinforcements/heavy weapons/sergeants before they're ready to fight, minimal delay (not counting drop time, which may be different for different units for balance purposes), assuming you had left the req available to order them. See? Flexible! Now consider being able to change what's on your barge mid-game by requisitioning it from a larger ship in higher orbit, perhaps being able to produce some things on the barge (heavy weapons, War Gear maybe?)

This also opens up new strategic options for high-risk gambits. Betting your opponent won't have sufficient AV on tap? You could use more space on your barge for dreadnoughts and predators, maybe even a land-raider, at the expense of infantry capacity. You could also spend every bit of req you have from the get-go to drop down the largest army you can manage without feeling out your opponent's build, basically the equivalent of a rush. "Oops, they were dug in with heavy weapons, overlapping fields of fire and had some AV to boot... 3/4 of my army is pushing up daisies, and I'm still short on req... erm... now what?!" OR: "Hahahaha, they tried to rush me too! OMG, so many pretty explosions... who's winning, anyway?!"

Even the most rigid barge system opens up all manner of new strategic options, while boosting excitement and removing tedium at the same time. Relic isn't in the business of boring, and i really think this is the way of the future of RTS games. Let Korea have their clickspam SC clone, complete with Unit Daycare Simulator (No offense to Koreans... unless you're a rabid SC fanboy who thinks a true RTS should still use 2D Sprites with zero AI). We're going to have some fun with RTS 2.0!

[Infidelicious]

Psykers and Daemons are believable as they are part of the world. Having to build X building after researching Y so that you can make a unit is a contrived way of slowing down access to said unit.

I imagine if IG are in, they will play similarly to the British in OF. Entrenching at every available opportunity while relying on Artillery and Armor to gain ground.


If any of you own CoH and OF, I suggest trying Fortress Europe.

It's an alpha, and it is pretty much just proof of concept. But it's really well done. He has completely removed buildings, all units are called in from off map.

The only down side is map control isn't as important simply because you don't earn resources other than morale (Basically munitions in vCoH) and Command Points through map control. He plans on making Command Points more important, to emphasize map control.

You still have a "Base" as it were, which is a road leading to the map, where you can reinforce your units and new units are called in from. Losing control of that area is bad, because you will be retreating to, and coming onto the map in an enemy controlled area.

Everything isn't available from the beginning, because you still have to wait on resources to become available. Thus, you buy your basic units to start with, and take over VP's. You then can either purchase units that would be equivalent to T2, or you can work with what you have while waiting for an early armored vehicle. The whole system is balanced on cost and availability, if you choose certain units other units are removed from your build menu, all units are limited in number, and losing a unit means it never comes back.

I am pretty sure that if One person with little to no background in game design can make a game with no buildings work, then Relic is fully capable of doing it.

[CoatedTrout]

This sounds interesting.

I hope that there will be SOME buildings in multi (maybe a seperate mode?) to keep fans of the original gameplay happy(ish).

Also, there better be a DAMN good way to prevent stalemates if the main mechanic is persistant force.

Basically, if they do this right, this will be the last RTS(/RTT) on the PC I will ever need(I'm not saying you have to like it :p)

[Thuraash]

OK, my last post made me think of something I found interesting:

With the battle-barge, versatility in your army is now a conscious, strategic decision, which opens up a chess-like meta-game of second-guessing your opponent's plans. This added layer starts before the battle even begins, and continues into the late-game till one player is soundly defeated. It'll add tension and excitement to the game that wasn't there before, simply because a player couldn't pull a sudden strategic 180-degree-turn on you without teching up to do it. Here's what I was thinking:

You now have lots of options in how you approach a battle. Here are a few I just thought up:

1) You can opt to stock your barge with an army that you know is well-suited to the map, irrespective of what your opponent does.

2) You can go for a build that's vulnerable to certain threats, but you know you can play it well, and weigh the risk that your opponent will have the counters available and recognize your weaknesses early enough to exploit them.

3) You can go for one that is particularly well suited to fighting your opponent's chosen race, if you know what it is or what it's likely to be.

4) You can go for a versatile build and try to have a counter available for what your opponent chooses to throw at you, at the risk of being forced to play at their pace and in their comfort zone, which could work against you.

5) Go for few, very powerful squads equipped with heavy weapons, perhaps specialized. If you exploit tactical opportunities, you could come out with a decisive win against a far more numerous force. On the flipside, you could use a whole lot of base-level units and just try and overpower the opponent, or pressure them into making tactical errors with your superior numbers.

The above was just a quick sampling of the possibilities I could come up with right off the top of my head. You could run a combination of any of them, and there are surely many builds I didn't even think of.

How to tailor the army is now entirely up to the player, and it opens up chess-esque meta-game, where you try to outsmart your opponent before the match even begins. The game could present certain statistics regarding each player in the prep stage to make it more interesting, like an indication of how many kills they have with infantry, how many with heavy weapons, how many with vehicles, an average of how much barge-space was dedicated to infantry and how much to vehicles over their past matches, etc. Furthermore, this meta-game continues into the battle, since you don't know what your opponent has at the ready on their barge. S/he can go straight infantry, then drop a pred and a dreadnought in out of the blue and bust the hell out of your entrenched forces because you didn't think to have AV on the field. See where I'm going with this?

[cannonfodder]

Rex: We know literally nothing about multiplayer, even the co-op is shrouded in mistery. Heck, we know nothing about the game itself. Right now the most logical choice is assuming the MP will use the same mechanics roughly as SP (don't think I ever met a game which used a completely different idea for SP than MP, to be honest).

We are all just assuming things, in the end. Well, until something definite is released...

[Octopus Rex]

Shaitan & Tyconius: hmm, interesting reasons - nice!

cannonfodder: I agree that SP and MP will generally be similar and was thinking much the same thing in response to many people intital response to DOW2 ("oh well, yeah, but [feature X] is surely only going to SP, skirmish will be different of course" - will it? are you suuuure?). As for assuming: of course, we are making assumptions as we don't have much to go, but many people seem to be jumping to conclusions too, which is a little bit different.

[Weavern]

"oh well, yeah, but [feature X] is surely only going to SP, skirmish will be different of course" - will it? are you suuuure?"

I'm mostly sure due to the sums of conflicting information which is slowly emerging, that and the compariable play mechanic for orks, and almost any other race does not equate to the marines. I mean how will orks get troops? A deth rok? Or whever its named. Orks cant just be falling from the sky as funny as that would look. Then again, like many here, I am projecting my views on the information and reasoning them into fact.

So it stands to reason that there is a good chunk of information missing from this equation. That and while a battlebarge might be an entire MP mode to itself, it does not seem likely that the entire multiplayer aspect will involve this.

Presupposing that there are 3 buildings for space marines, one for infantry, one for vehicles, and a third for something else. Then you can quite readily have standard dow fare and meet the comments that buildings are an extreme back seat. If you dont have builder units, but instead just drop the building from orbit (for space marines only perhaps).

The french preview for what its worth just informed that there will be tech and reinforcement which can be purchased. This indicates that there is some sort of macro model and structure for researching.

With tieins to the battlebarge, remember in DoW, virtually every single building that produced a unit for space marines had an animation in the build cycle of a drop pod or a thunderhawk delivering the unit. It would not be a far stretch of any imagination to have a LZ much more minimalistic then the buildings used for dow2.

[Thuraash]

Actually, I can totally see the Orks falling from the sky on rocks... it fits the Orky way of doing things like a glove, and I believe that's one of their ways of hitting the ground in the fluff.

Here's something to think about: what if each of the races had an entirely different way of entering battle, requiring different behavior on the battlefield?

[Weavern]

Thuraash I consider that far far more likely, that each race will be unique and will have various throwbacks and advancements. For instance SM might be completely different as defined and commented by others. They might have a single building and everything else is done with a screen to represent a battle barge.

Orks could still have buildings and behave very similar to how they did in DOW. Other races introduced could move between that spectrum.

[Octopus Rex]

Absolutely Weav, with such little information in our hands there's still a ton of ways it could go, especially for multiplayer. We don't know how it's going to play, and it's definitely fun to discuss and think about possible outcomes. Some things we can reasonably predict and some we can try to take logical steps to, but even then we're on thin ground and shaky ice.

I dunno, I think I just felt that some people were intent on deciding what the finished game was going to be, and making a conclusion from that. Maybe some people are just a leetle bit quick to be a naysayer for my tastes. Meh, why spoil your fun? :)

[JuggernautRM]

From what I have read in these last couple of pages, I kinda figure out what you guys are envisioning.

Now hopefully the Dev's are probably making different MP modes. A persistent battle barge system is probably gonna be one of them for the Space Marines. Now I know some of you are going to be arguing that this will cause people with fully upgraded battle barges and etc to just beat up on the guys with stock barges. I think the Dev's are smart enough to develop a ranking system that is already evident in most RTS games' where a high ranking player would most likely not be teamed up against a lower ranking player, because their ranking will be effected negatively even if they win against a player who is ranked alot lower than he is. This probably will stop farming of smaller players by stronger more experienced players.

Also, to those people who are arguing that removing base building will be bad for the game, the players, and everything in general, think about it like this. This mobile base of yours will probably start fresh clean when you start your MP career. As you win battles and etc, you will be able to upgrade and build up your mobile base to accommodate different builds and different armies. This will allow those who want a way to control their economy and etc to have a way to do this instead of just picking up units and dropping them on the battlefield and hoping for the best.

Ill post more on this later, but I am about to get late to class.

[Thuraash]

JuggernautRM:
I think that the upgraded barges don't need to be spectacularly powerful. Maybe they'll just allow for expanded battlefield options, but not necessarily explicitly better ones? The stock barge could still be plenty powerful and fully capable, with a complete array of strategic flexibility. For example, all barges could be capable of deploying land speeders and ASM's for fast attack, but bike squads are an upgrade?

[ARMYguy]

I hope Weavern is right and this is just a Space Marine way of doing things... I dont want to imagine my guard without their bunkers... i gotta hide somewhere from the bolter walls. lol. Not that i even think IG are in the game, cause i doubt it, but still, even Orks should have bases as they are in DOW.

Guess we will wait and see.

[c0416991]

"-- Each unit in a squad will have their own name, look and specialization."
Is this talking about the whole game or just only for the campaign ?I hope its for the whole game...

[Thuraash]

I think another preview suggested that a unit's specialization within a squad is determined by the weapon/wargear they're equipped with. That would work just fine in skirmish and MP, even if the units aren't named there. Alternatively, hiring named troops would be awesome!

ARMYguy: I don't think Orks need bases. IG definitely need static defenses and battle-lines to be effective, but roving warparties of orks sounds just fine to me. Dropping from space in asteroids, like the fluff suggests. Maybe their way of entering would be different because you drop a whole asteroid, and not just a single drop pod with one squad or one vehicle, so you'd be dropping in large quantities of units at a time.

[s33k]

Who knows maybe just no bases for the Space Marines? Make them more the "elite strike force" that they are meant to be. Maybe Orkz will have some buildings, and for example lets say Chaos and IG make it in: IG buildings will be something more like CoH did where they use a building from the area as the command post, making the IG more PDF style. Chaos, might have just a chaos portal or something.

I think that, with taking away SM buildings and leaving a few for the other races, goes in hand with what we've seen from articles so far, "no more base building" and "base building has been reduced".

I wanna see some info on the multiplayer aspect of the game thus far.

[Shuma]

If the No Buildings is just for Marines, that's the most awesome thing i could hear about this game, however if it's no buildings for everyone, then it sucks.

'Cause i would love in the expansions(assuming eventually all the nine races are back) to build/see massive IG Fortressess, Necron Tombs rising from the ground(actual buildings, not a fucking monolith) Tau outposts, Chaos whatever they do, etc etc. It's clear that for some races it makes sense to not have buildings, Tyranids, Eldar, Orks, Marines for example. But IG, NEED buildings, it's part of what they are, Tau, i'm no expert on Tau Fluff, but i have always imagined they first send scouts, then set up a small outpost and then smite the enemy, Necrons sometimes appear just like Ghosts, coming out of nowhere, destroying everything and leaving, but thei're also portrayed as rising from the ground from their catacoms.

Besides, i would love to see DoW 2 be made more like SC in the way that each race is truly unique, of course this kind of stuff would make each race more unique from each other than say Zerg and Prottos.

[zero rogue]

-- You can take up to six squads per mission. It might mean that you can try a stupidly heroic option of taking on a red mission with just one squad :-). And it most likely means that there will be more than six squads to choose from prior to any given battle.

Did anyone notice this? Looks like their shrinking the cap to 6 squads per mission. it sounds more like an RPG than a RTS.. I just hope that that cap pertains only to single player. otherwise that alone will put DoW2 on my no-buy list.

[Skwarek]

Damn ;/ I'm afraid that in the end it will look more like "Chaos Gate" than "Dawn of War"..... I want a real rts, not some kinda rpg - rts hybrid ;/

[Thuraash]

Zero Rogue and Skwarek:
I think you're missing the other part of that preview: even Tacs are now superhumanly powerful, and I'm guessing Termies would only go up from there. The analogy they used was that they're like the Spartans in "300", but instead, call it "30." This means that very small numbers of Space Marines can have it out and be competitive with way larger groups of other troops. This differentiates their play style even more, and is more consistent with the fluff. Plus, it just doesn't look right, for the venerable space marines to seem like so-so units.

Remember in DoW, when the Space Marines were described as the most generic of all the races in Dark Crusade? Well, guess what. If we're all reading this right, then that's not at all true anymore.

Worry not, we'll still have an RTS, but without the boring crap. Relic seldom drops the ball, and it's been a long time since they last did. They thrive on innovation, so let them do their thing, and judge it when we have a better picture of what it is! We could be looking at the next generation of RTS here.

[Ruined]

There are a couple of factual inaccuracies in that summary. Whether this is a translation issue or the magazine getting the wrong idea i don't know.

e.g. the bit about campaigns for Orks and Marines only is a mistake

[Croaxleigh]

Well, initial reports hinted that the campaign might be for only Orks and Marines. It's possible that when it was later reported as being for all of the races that the folks who said that got it wrong.

[Thuraash]

RELIC!! Save your loyal fans from the madness of conflicting first-looks!!
I mean, really, one of them called Dreadnoughts Juggernauts and Behemoths, but never Dreadnoughts in the same article. There must have been SOMEBODY in that office who knew a thing or two about 40K or DoW who wanted to do that preview...

Then again, I can totally see the machine spirit of a dreadnought, screaming "I'm the Juggernaut, b!tch!!" in some goofy synthesized voice as it charges at a crowd of hapless orks. I think I'd crap my pants...

[lokkee]

The more I hear about DoW2, the less I like the sound of it.

Coop-campaign is all right but lifespan on such games is short, plus it is demanding in time. It is skirmish games that matters to me: nothing very crunchy as been said on that topic so far.

I don't mind not having base management, even pre-defined deployement is ok, Dark Omen was based on that principle with a very scripted A.I. and was good nonetheless.
But W40K is about battles at galaxies's scale and yet we are getting a gameplay focussed on even smaller units cap than before. This is not good to me.

No addition to battlefields or environment diversity: no air (let's face it SS dealt poorly with air anyway) no water units or strategy it was fine on DoW... I'm more demanding from DoW2.
I don't know...but getting zero grav or non terestrial suroundings would have changed from so called space opera universe we are used to get in movies and games. Same old stuff here...boring. W40K fluff is rich enough to avoid this and yet, here we are.

Things can still change but, character art is not that much impressive so far, and though it can eventually compete with SCII... it will definetively not impress any longer in 2009.

THQ is doing poorly...I very much hope it will no take Relic in its fall, but right now it doesn't look good. I had great expectation on DoW2 but what's been uncovered is not the "W40K experience" I am waiting for.

[Frankie7508]

I think it's way to early to say that it's all about small unit and caps, when the only thing we've heard about AT ALL is the SM campaign, which is being true to fluff, one of the major complaints that people in this forum have brought up innumerable times against DOW. Whether this will translate to MP has yet to be seen. Also, I strongly disagree about the art and visuals. I think they are stunning. DOW2 has rich and deep colors through the use of shaders, keeping polygon counts low=better frame rates(That's what I've heard, but I know little about the technical details so please correct me if I'm wrong.) I think we should withhold judgment until we hear about DOW2 from the horses mouth, Relic.

[Imperial Dane]

@c0416991:
I only think it's for the campaign where wargear fits into it, and i only think it is for space marines, as honestly, i don't think you'll see squad specialisations in an ork mob

@Lokkee:


@Point 1:Skirmish
Well nothing has been said about skirmish or multiplayer, so it is very hard to complain about it when all the focus has been on the campaign and gameplay mechanics, wouldn't you say ?

@Point 2:Scale
Uhh.. so far it is only the space marines we know that will have that limit, and that might just be for the campaign, and the squads still look larger than in CoH, and let us not forget.. we haven't seen it all ! Besides, as far as i know, regular TT doesn't get up to a galaxies scale, besides, that is what campaigns are for in a sense. Otherwise it's just skirmish games, and multiplayer matches, which are basiclly skirmishes against other players.
So try and wait before we know some more about what is actually going on, as so far, the picture is muddled with conflicting information from different previews.

@Point3: Environs and stuff
I don't know...but getting zero grav or non terestrial suroundings would have changed from so called space opera universe we are used to get from movies and games. Same old stuff here...boring.


What ? Zero grav ? You know how hard that is going to be to pull of ? And non terrestrial surroundings. uhhmm that would kinda exclude a lot as there really wouldn't be much to fight over, but hey, it's your opinion on what is exciting.. although i don't understand you quite.

@Point 4: Character art
uhh.. what ? Character art ? Eventually compete with SC2 ?.. uhmm, what exactly are you talking about ? The concept art ? I mean that is not what a game is about, the concept art is just an idae, besides they really can't stray mich in warhammer 40k from the original models, can they ? And you "Definetively not impress any longer in 2009" comment seems quite subjective and not really based on any rational argument beyond the fact that you don't like it.

And to finish it off.. we have seen VERY LITTLE of DoW 2 so far, so i'd would have to say, that saying that DoW 2 is going to be bad at this stage is a very premature act without much thought given into it.

[Thuraash]

Lockee:
I don't see much rational basis for any of your arguments, either. We've not even seen it in action yet!
As for your argument about WH40K being about galactic scale conflicts: that's not at all what the game is about. WH40K TT is a tactical game, meaning you control a relatively small number of units in a single battle, which is fictionally set in this massive war. The battles themselves are still relatively small.

The other thing is that it makes sense for the Space Marines to have very few units. They're supposed to be absurdly powerful super-soldiers, and as such, you can't have a large army. You can justify that design choice both it in terms of realism, and game balance.

However, that doesn't mean that some other armies can't be large. This is actually extremely likely, since Relic clearly likes to make the armies play radically different from each other. Playing as the Space Marines should be nothing like playing as the Imperial Guard, or the Orks, or the 'Nids.

Relic has proven many times that they aren't in the business of making bad games, just as they are very seldom content to rehash the same old formula over and over again. They redefined what we thought of as a space RTS with Homeworld, redefined what could be done in RTS games with DoW. Even with the expansion packs to DoW, they made redical changes to the gameplay, and tried to innovate as much as they could within the restrictions of the engine they had to work with (see: HUGE changes to how the game was played, introduced entirely new playstyles with the IG, Tau and Necron, and threw the conventional resource system to the wind with the Necrons as well. They then busted the genre again in a different way with CoH, and now they're getting ready to hit us with the innovation stick again. Given that track record, I'd give them the benefit of the doubt, and wait and see what happens before playing doomsayer.

[lokkee]

keeping polygon counts low=better frame rates(That's what I've heard, but I know little about the technical details so please correct me if I'm wrong.) I think we should withhold judgment until we hear about DOW2 from the horses mouth, Relic.

LOD is done for that (well in theory)
on camera close ups, units polycount can be ramped up because what's on display is just as dense as when it shows large amount of units featuring a smaller polycount per unit. Its management is hardwired on most graphic cards nowadays.

DoW2 unit's polycount doesn't look much higher than DoW, it features more advanced shaders and that is pretty much it.
If that is for the sake of gameplay ...Amen.
But from what's been disclosed about SM caps, I don't expect vast amount of units. but more action/tactical gameplay.

Environments are nice and shiny but that is in line regards to what the industry has produced so far. I'll wait to see non urban scene to see if it keeps its promises on that department.

@Imperial Dane

Being a big fan of DoW doesn't implies from me "unconditionnal fanboism" for DoW2.
I don't complain about anything, just expressing my opinion.

- 1
My point precisely.
I see no point at all to speculate on background/storyline material other than buzzing around.

Skirmish is the backbone of an RTS and I am MUCH more concerned about how it plays than about campaign or storyline...
Unfortunately I believe that gameplay is a secondary concern for most people who came to DoW franchise because of its "W40K stuff".

On DC/SS I've finished to play the metamaps (and lost interest in them) long ago while I still enjoy skirmishes. Campaigns so far were merely tutorials and marketting hooks and don't express the full range of the gameplay capabilities IMO.
I can't think of any RTS where it isn't the case. Perhaps Relic will suceed here nothing would please me more...But so far that is just "mainstream".

My concerns are rational and based on the material we've been given.

2-
Ruled out
You are restricting your views to mainstream TT. Epic, Armageddon Necromunda Space Hulk/crusade I certainly forget some...not to mention novels that exploit W40K.
DoW is based on W40K's Universe, not W40K TT.

3-
When I say I'm bored, it is about the lack of variety when exo worlds are depicted.
Just consider the sheer amount of diversity featured on ...Earth, it makes me laugh out loud to see that we are still playing on
-Desert world
-Ice World
-Jungle world...
Yay! City world

come on... Star Wars is a bit old now and Sci Fi offers us better than that. I'd have hope the industry to get over it.
On top of that W40K is rich enough to provide material to overcome these "übercommon" stereotypes.

The implications of Exotic environments, on the contrary of what you seem to believe can be a hyperdrive for the game designers's creativity.

4-
I thought it was plain enough :
Character art is the craft that focus on delivering "characters" within the game.

I am judging the game's screenshots and I am not talking about any other marketting material.

Developing a game of this scope takes between 3 and 4 years, in that respect R&D on graphics is crucial because what can be seen as revolutionary is catch up rapidly by competitors.
What we have seen of DoW2 as far as characters are concerned does not make me jump out of my chair...Yes I reckon it is subjective. Believe it or not it is honest too.

Last, I never said that DoW2 is going to be good or bad or anything, I just dislike the turn it takes, from what I can see, which is not much we agree at least on that point.

[c0416991]

there must be some structures, can you image that ig has no turrets or bunkers, eldar don't have web gates? that would be absurd.

[Thuraash]

It's highly doubtful that the IG will be included, this time around, and it's not entirely unprecendented for Relic to try and turn the old formula on its head when they release an expansion pack.

As for webway gates... that's an interesting question... maybe they'll pre-exist on
the maps? Aren't they supposed to be ancient structures, anyway?

Having them be pre-built onto the maps could make them natural focal points of conflict, since opponents wouldn't want Eldar to have access to them, and the Eldar would definitely want them. This would also make the location's value vary based on whether or not they're actually important, i.e. whether or not there's a player present who can actually exploit them.

[Shuma]

The IG will eventually appear in a expansion pack.

[Thuraash]

Right, that's what I meant. Sorry for being unclear...
I meant that they won't be in DoW II from square one, but would likely be added in an exp pack. That pack may allow them, and maybe only them, to build certain types of structures to change the game up. Just a thought...

[Imperial Dane]

Being a big fan of DoW doesn't implies from me "unconditionnal fanboism" for DoW2.
I don't complain about anything, just expressing my opinion

Uhhh.. what ? What has that got to do with anything ? Unconditional fanboyism ? What the hell are you talking about ? I haven't accused you of anything that would warrant such an attack even the slightest.

@1: What ? What are you reading ? Because it can't be what i wrote ! Because i said that we know nothing about skirmish or multiplayer because that hasn't been shown ! THAT ONLY THE CAMPAIGN HAS BEEN SHOWN ! I never said there was no point in talking about the storyline..

@2 : What ? Ruled out ? Hell space marines usually work in small groups, and it is those we have heard of so far ! And again, we haven't heard it all.

@3:Oh grow up, there were plenty besides that, and again, most of the battles in warhammer 40k happen there, i mean otherwise you will be excluding a lot of factions if the battles suddenly have to take place on some weird alien world.

@4:and what seems to be the problem then ? Because so far i am hearing nothing but a subjective opinion, nothing rational to actually base that upon, nor for relic to take into account if they were to change them.. besides, they are based on the models of warhammer 40k ! They are supposed to look like that !

and to finish it off lokkee.. We haven't seen anything yet ! So far it has been muddled and a bit contradictive previews ! So stop basing everything off them ! Especially considering we still know nothing about nearly everything in the game.

[Shuma]

Technically, we know nothing 'bout this game for sure besides the fact that Orks and SM are in and Co-Op Campaings, everything else is shrouded in mistery.

[lokkee]

@Imperial Dane

keep replying that I can't build any critics because we know almost nothing, then nobody should have anything to say ...including you.
Since we are speculating I see few options here
-I don't explain myself correctly
or
-You can't read me

So I'm going to break it down once again before assuming you are just trying to mess around with me.

1-You genuinely raised a point I was not opposed to. I merely pointed out that gameplay-wise, we are only fed with shallow informations on campaign instead of "how it actually feels to play the bloody thing".

2-I "assume" DoW2 is not getting bigger armies than DoW.
I do not claim it should be a source of disapointment for everyone, I just don't like the sound of it.
"TO ME", W40K universe, and DoW franchise should be more than transposing W40k TT.
Tactical gameplays with small units numbers are fine, but more appropriate for handheld format than a PC experience.
W40K universe is to me about exhilaration before epic battles, overcoming countless ennemies and grinning atop montains of dead foes. I suspect it was GW intent as well.

"From the screenshots we've been provided", the game engine seems to be crafted to hold up with the kind of views we had in DoW.
extra shaders requirements are ressource-consuming, hence zooming in and out will most likely not be more dramatic than before.
Am I rational enough here ?

3-It is the industry that needs to grow up, if you are happy with more of the same, good for you ! But don't bother me because of your lack of expectations for this game.
Power armour are versatile and can move almost anywhere, for the units who can't, there is workarounds.
Limiting the gameplay to ground units is constraining the gameplay in what it "could" explore. We are talking about a company who delivered Homeworld after all.

4-

-miniatures don't have the same proportions, some details change from the miniature range. I fail to see that it improves SM or orks visuals.
Artistic licenses have been taken, drifting from TT and can't be justified by gameplay reasons.

-we are indulged the same shading look and feel than the "realistic standards" of the game industry and graphic treatment doesn't look like TT whatsoever. I would have found more refreshing to have something closer to what GW's miniatures can visually provide rather than the mainstream videogame treatment.

-the models wireframe are not much better than in DoW in high LoD and you can pretty much spot the same flaws /armour junctions angular outlines arms/hands crudly textured.
Purely speaking of wireframe, I think Winter Assault's IGs were better crafted. (PLEASE NOTE I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT SHADERS/NORMAL MAPS AND FANCIFUL FX)

-These are RTS units and therefore MUST remain lowpoly, but then camera's point of view should be distant enough to show them at their best...which is not the case here.

I'm sure we both can keep living a long life without having the same opinion.
Last yes I'm being subjective I don't think I tried to hide it... But breaking news: we all are.

[Imperial Dane]

@Lokkee:
And how about you starting to talk some sense !
We can speculate, problem is we can't take everything as cold hard facts and that much more will appear in the future, plus the information we have seen so far is muddled and some contradicts other bits.

1:
okay i concede to having misread that point, but i'd say it isn't anything to actually bother about as it was just first previews, they can't tell everything right off you know. They have to hide the stuff and they decided that telling bits about the campaign would be the most interesting to tell about, which i agree with.

2:Well glad to hear what your idea of WH40k is all about, but that is not DoW, DoW is about tactical combat and getting up all close and stuff like that, besides we have only so far heard about the space marines, in which case the low numbers make sense, because they don't wander off in huge numbers, plus it's been like that in DoW, why expect it to suddenly change ? You don't dramatically change a game from the first to the sequel, makes no sense. So no, you're not being entirely rational as you have already admitted to that being how DoW was, and logically DoW 2 would kinda continue that.

3:The industry needs to grow up ? No you need to grow up, it has nothing to do with expectations, it has to do with what you can do and what would make sense within the warhammer 40k world, seriously i have said it before, most of those things you mention aren't very likely battle grounds, i mean sure you can have them but you'll most likely exclude any imperial intervention as they really don't care about any non-imperial territories or potential imperial territories, meaning terrestrial ground they can conquer and colonize. I mean you want something outlandish, but don't want to realise that it wouldn't fit in, that it would be extremely hard to do and really wouldn't serve any purpose.
Plus you can do a lot with those areas you have already mentioned, plus those you didn't mention there was in DoW, it's all a matter of imagining, something you don't seem to have seeing as you just crave something new instead of realising what could be done with what is already there.

4:Okay i understand absolutely nothing of what you say there

the models wireframe are not much better than in DoW in high LoD and you can pretty much spot the same flaws /armour junctions angular outlines arms/hands crudly textured

What the hell does that mean ? How can you see that, even less know that ? I mean se far we have seen screenshots !

It's starting to sound like you want a supreme commander with a hint of warhammer 40k..


I'm sure we both can keep living a long life without having the same opinion.
Last yes I'm being subjective I don't think I tried to hide it... But breaking news: we all are.

Yes we are all subjective to some point, but if we are going to discuss something, like here on the forums, we have to try and be objective, something you seem to admit you aren't, which kinda makes it hard to discuss anything with you, or what ? you don't want to discuss and just want everybody else to accept your opinion ?

[Thuraash]

You raise some interesting points, Lokkee, though I don't agree with them all.

@1: I agree that we haven't gotten the best information. My other posts make clear my dissatisfaction with the quality of the magazine coverage. However, this is not entirely unusual for mag exclusive coverage, and a lot of games were really cryptic till they were fleshed out directly to the public, or to the online gaming sites like Gamespy and IGN (who are now nearly one and the same...).

@2: There's no evidence that it's actually getting smaller, since we don't know how large the Ork army can be compared to the SMs. All we know is that Tacs are now in fewer numbers, and way more powerful than before, which implies it would take a sizable Ork army to take them on. From the sound of things, it's going to be epic to play as SM, partially because you have a small group of utter badasses at your command.
Even if they shrink the scope of the game a bit, I'm fine with that. Massive battles are cool, but they don't lend that sense of control that you have in smaller ones. It becomes more about spam, and less about exploiting tactical openings as the number of troops increase. It makes sense for the Orks to have a spammy component to their fighting style, along with a few very strong units, but it's not suitable for SMs.

As for the visuals, they're actually not looking bad at all. Have you seen the hi-res shots on the website? They're quite detailed, especially for such an early build. It looks like they haven't implemented parts randomization yet, and some of the stuff is pretty rough around the edges, but I'm betting that'll get ironed out by the end. It looks quite awesome for something that's so far from release.

@3: This IS the industry growing up. Making the game better by getting rid of the old base-building, making factions more distinct and giving them character, improving the reinforcement system, adding the battle-barge mechanic, improving unit AI and their ability to utilize cover, making the game more about intelligent use of advanced tactics (a step in the same direction CoH took) and less about exlusively exploiting primitive techniques like dancing and making the game less of a clickspam by having units think for themselves. There's innovation here, on a much higher level than simply making it bigger and conjoining a space game.
DoW is about intense ground battles, and I personally am very fond of that. I would like air units to be implemented CoH style, only for specially requested attacks.

@4: I really don't understand your first two points. Yeah, it doesn't exactly mirror the TT models and scales. The vehicles look bigger in comparison to the troops and such, which I think is an improvement.
The models, aside from the hands, actually look pretty good to me. I would want to see their polished renditions, and most importantly, I would like to see their animations before I pass judgment, though.
Judging by the second screen shot, the camera can be pulled pretty far back (though I would prefer a free-roaming cam like in WiC...)

[Eisenhorn538]

@Thuraash

Just because base building is "old" doesn't mean that removing it is going to make things better. It's a tried and tested formula that works for RTS games and people certainly find it enjoyable or else they wouldn't have bought DoW and continued to play it.

Nearly everything you have mentioned can be accomplished easily with bases. In fact buildings are a great way of making factions more distinct and giving them character as we saw in DoW. Almost all the IG buildings are bunkers that can be garrisoned and the Eldar can cloak and teleport their buildings at will.

What saddens me is that I've seen more and more people say they want base building removed just for the sake of being different from other RTS games.

[lokkee]

@ Imperial Dane
Do you often go up to Tier4 ? Have you played DoW ? We are actuallly reffering to the same game right ?
No point to keep arguing the 2 first points I believe. When I play DoW the kind of experience I'm having is closer from what I described than the tactical game you depict.

3
I can't blame you for not having any imagination, or a curious mind but cut me some slack here:
Earth had amoniac atmosphere for millions of years, with evolved life on it...
what if you have to fight amongst saturated areas deploy on semi terestrial surroundings...
These kind of settings can have very simple implications on a gameplay, and actually bring some more variety...
Nah instead let's just have yet another C&C.... Is it what you mean by growing up?
I very much hope that destroying a building is not the epiphany of your views on interaction with your environment... I personally don't, perhaps should I grow up?
I have a pretty good overview on what can and cannot be done on computer games btw.

4-
Nothing more I can do for you here, you wanted me to give my arguments here they are sorry if it is dry for you.
so either you document yourself properly about how characters are done in videogames (which I recommend 'cause it is good fun)
or you take my word for it and assume I am more competent than you on that ground
(and there is strong odds that I currently am).

[TheMiracul]

Does anyone know if it will rewuire DirectX10... respectively Windows Vista?

[Imperial Dane]

@Themiracul: I would find it very odd if it did, i am sure there will be benefits to having dx10, but i don't think that, or windows vista will be a requirement for DoW 2.

@Lokkee:
So now you accuse me of never having played DoW ? That's a grave insult boy, now how about you actually stop yelling accusations of this and that at me and actually discuss things ?

3:What kind of implications then ? Although you would still have to explain to me why the hell they would be figthing out there in the first place, why the imperium would divert it's resources to a world it can't use at all or the tau for that matter.
and again, stop hurling accusations at me, it's kinda dull.
But please, explain to me the implications, what you would be able to do with such new worlds, and why apparently you cannot do anything new with the ones there already is.

4:Considering it was you that started it, i would say it is up to you to bring proof of your competence and in the first case explain it instead of dodging it and saying i won't be able to understand it.

@Eisenhorn: Yeah, that seems to be a common misconception, not saying that RTS with bases is bad or dull.. but on the other hand just removing bases isn't an instant win and will immediately ensure it will be so and so great.

[Frankie7508]

I don't know if this would be the correct thread, but I didn't see one for the French magazine. Did any of you find the French magazine saying that vehicles also got wargear interesting? Do you think it will be along the lines of heavy bolters/autocannon/lascannon/twin-linked lascannon and maybe some more armor? Or could anyone enlighten me on some of the special wargear for vehicles?

[lokkee]

Im not yelling .. I'm discussing with valid arguments... you don't.

Saying I'm complaining and irrationnal become rather irritating in that context and I think I have been more offended by your phrasing than I care to count, behave yourself as I won't indulge your petty peaks much longer.

As for character art, I make a living out of it and try hard not to be ashame of my work.
Though I have absolutely nothing to proove, you can eventually check for yourself.
www.faerie-stone.net

[Croaxleigh]

Ok, folks... I'll say this nice and clear.

1) Bickering back and forth accompishes nothing. Constructive conversation i fine. Increasingly-heated accusations and arguments are not. The latter leads to deleted posts, warnings, and locked threads. The current tone of this thread is rapidly approaching that point.

2) It's been said time and again, but I'll say it one more time. Do NOT link to scans of copyrighted materials.

[Desk]

@Frankie7508 , about wargears for vehicle.
The french magazine don't give a lot of informations. They just say that it could be weapons , armors pieces , or something unique for leaders.
Then they say that there are actually 3 types of equipments , those for squads , those for vehicles and then those for squad leaders.

[Imperial Dane]

hmm.. interesting.. and it says nothing whatsoever beyond that ? Well, i don't think we will be seeing the grand things when it comes to vehicle wargear though..

[Frankie7508]

Thanks Desk. The more I hear about wargear the more interesting it sounds. It sounds like it will be pretty deep and varied, rather than the rather shallow systems of SS and DC.

[Imperial Dane]

Well Frankie, just remember that the wargear system in DC and SS were just a start, of course it will look shallow compared to the new one, just as the cover system looks rather unimaginative compared to CoH's cover system.

[Thuraash]

I'm guessing the vehicle wargear would be armor upgrades, maybe like added side or rear armor or the like, or more likely weapons upgrades. I know that some types of Predators can be armed with 3 sets of twin-linked storm bolters on each sponson... that would be awesome!

Dane:
Yeah, the DoW system was nothing but a numbers game. Now they've got the visuals to match, and it looks like you'll actually see shots bounce off cover in DoWII, judging by the screenshots. I'm really keen to see some of the new gameplay mechanics Relic throws in this time. They've always done a lot of interesting stuff before... the squads and dogfights in HW2, melee, strategic point driven gameplay etc. and a host of other cool stuff in DoW, cover and a vastly improved strategic point system, plus destructible buildings and intelligent unit AI in CoH... the list just goes on. Can't wait!