German Preview of DOW2 ( GameStar 07/2008)

[Quak0r]

A Preview of Dawn of War 2 was printed in this month's edition of the German magazine GameStar.

I did my best to sum up the important parts of the artikle ( plz don't kill me for my english) ^^

- The Intro is like a animated comic (comic in the style of wh40k, more like grim drawings)
- The huys from the magazine saw no on-map player-build buildings during the presentation
- Exploding Barrels
- Collapsing on-map buildings can apperently hurt nearby Units
- System requiernments NOT higher than for CoH (dev quote)
-Upgrades for the Hero
- 2 Slots for Weapons
- 1 for Armor
- 3 for support Items
- Squadmembers gain experience and if they die they can be replaced with new members on the field ( new = starting at 0 regarding the experience
- Bolterbarrels glow after shooting
- Posession of stratigic locations more important than in dow (this system was updated with a "innovative element")
- All info on the Singleplayer; NO Info on the Multiplayer in this article

As usual: don't ask for scans or screens :P

Cheers

PS: sorry if it's annoying when i add new info on the run by editing the OP all the time but my brain isn't working today.... terrible headache

[jon_the_d]

awesome!!!! no buildings!!!!! dream come true!!!! the rest all sounds good too. thanks for the info!

[Glubtrak]

Thanks for the info. Always nice to get new information.
While i have serious doubts about it having the same system requirements as CoH its nice to know that my old piece of crap PC might be able to play it.
The intro is like an animated comic? That sounds like the good old Relic style cinematics. And if that is true, consider it bought. I just love that style. It's unique and effective. Plus they can spend all that omgwtf-high-resulution-cinematics-money on more important things.

[Dark Angel N00b]

System requiernments NOT higher than for CoH

If this is true, i may be the happiest person in this country right now.

[Quak0r]

According to the article the statement about the sys requirements is a quote of one of the devs

[Torbert]

Really no buildings? I have heard that they will have fewer buildings, in other articles and stuff discussed here. I guess its not all that bad, but I did enjoy the really long bloody fights in DoW1. World in Conflict never really proved me with that.

[ImmortalChaos]

Don't get too excited, anti-building people. Looks to me like this is again describing the single-player game and not skirmish/MP.

[Torbert]

Thats not to bad, I would not mind that to much.

[Thuraash]

:Loco:

This is officially on my very exclusive pre-order list!

Eh? Err... hang on a second...

Ah, my gobbo slave-footballs- err... esteemed associates, have just informed me that I do not, in fact, have a pre-order list.... Oh well, all the more exclusive!

Especially the falling buildings hurting units and the various other little details. This is looking awesome! I'm hoping Relic will let IGN have a peek soon... then we'll hopefully get some concrete info!

[jon_the_d]

@immortal chaos:

you think such a massive change to game play and game design would be done? no buildings in SP but all the buildings and tech trees to go with it in MP? they'd be completely different games!

I'm pretty sure MP will follow the lines of campaign, just not have structured missions.

Looks like it;s going to be more about area control and point control, not buildings and bases.

I'm curious as to their "innovative" twist...

[Quak0r]

It might be usefull to mention that the editors of the GameStar magazine saw only the fist two missions of the campagne and only the singleplayer.

Cheers

[Panama]

System requirments not higher than CoH!!! OMG this is truly awesome news, may not need to buy a new computer after all :D Im also a very happy chappy because of the no buildings, that means more fighting and strategy, less worrying about whether your base is gonna be attacked. BY THE EMPEROR this sounds truly superb.

[Moe]

- No buildings whatsoever

- Collapsing buildings can apperently hurt nearby Units

Wait, what? No buildings, but they can collapse?

[Thuraash]

Non player-built buildings, lol. Buildings to garrison troops in, a la CoH. They are including city-scapes, after all.

[jon_the_d]

has there been any discussion about building collapses? cos I think we knew they'd hurt (if not kill) the troops inside, but if they can hurt near by troops.....?

Imagine if they don;t just crumble...but topple.......a large tower slowly toppling to one side....TIMBER!!!! get outta the way!!!!

that would be cool.

[Thuraash]

But would this be tactically exploitable, or just something that happens randomly? I mean, this is all run off the physics engine, so now we go into simplified game pseudo-physics land, where my mechanical engineering classes no longer function quite as well as I'd like.

I mean, if you were to shoot a few rockets or a lascannon into the side of a tall building (and here's me hoping that there ARE tall buildings in this game) and it were to collapse, it would make sense for it to collapse towards the side it was hit.

Pseudo-physics/dynamics/mechanics of solids, GO!
The support structure on that side is compromised, starts to fail, you lose the force acting on the building on that side of the base. Because of the imbalanced forces, it should lean towards the damaged side (creates a moment about the axis drawn between the two side corners, which becomes the strongest point of the structure, since most materials are designed to withstand compression, not tension), which SHOULD cause it to collapse in the general direction of the incoming rounds. There's your pseudo-physics, and no, I didn't put much thought into that, so if it's wrong, correct me.

So yeah, if there are troops entrenched in the shadow of a tall building, I suppose you could try and take out the building with some heavy weapons, like a predator annhilator or whatnot, and try to harm/disrupt them by dropping the building on them. Would pose some insteresting strategic possibilities, if it worked that way.

Edit: Jon, yes, this would indeed be VERY cool! XD

[Kapp'n]

This is brilliant news!!! With my current PC, I should be able to run DoW2 on high settings. This has put me to rest :jump:

As for the no buildings, I look forward to seeing how it all works out.

[mikami170]

damn i hope it doesn't become warcraft 3

[Fax A Hax]

Are you kidding me? No Buildings! That is absolutely ridiculous! One of the funnest part of RTS games are building a strategical base that can look cool and build men. Then you can defeat your enemy by destroying there base!

This is absolutely this worst news I've ever heard! Dawn of War 2 isn't a RTS!

I don't know about you guys but Dawn of War 2 Vs. Red Alert 3 = Red Alert 3 FTW.

Infact I wouldn't even say its a competition seeing as Dawn of War 2 isn't a RTS Game!!!

How the hell are you supposed to win the game when nobody has a base? HOW THE HELL ARE YOU SUPPOSED TO BUILD UNITS?

World in Conflict IMO is one of the most overrated games in existence.

I am very disappointed now. I'm sorry for having a dumb ranting post but honestly I think this game is going to suck because there just trying to copy off of World in Conflict. I was actually planning on buying this game instead of Red Alert 3. Those plans just flew out the window now that Dawn of War 2 isn't an RTS game.

[Mirage Knight]

Moe:

The reference is to the fact that base building is going to be yanked. With gameplay focusing heavily on actual combat, me is very happy indeed :agree:

Collapsing buildings refers to on-map buildings that can be used as cover or occupied by troops. This functionality looks to be identical to what can be found in CoH.

[Quak0r]

Damn you Moe and your need to make sense ^^

Edited the OP to clear up the mess ( buildings and sys req )

[Fax A Hax]

Its a RTS not a FPS. Its strategy not send your units out and fight. I mean I think the resource system is pretty cool and easy. Its not as stressful as collecting can be at times. So yeah I thought it was cool. But now this is just stupid. People who play these games are focusing on skill and strategy not men shooting each other. I think no base building = The death of Dawn of War until Dawn of War 3 comes out.

[Imperial Dane]

Ehh.. no base building ? I honestly don't like the sound of it, while i am not complaining, i have to say that Base building is a part of DoW to me, just yanking it out sounds a bit crude to be honest.

[Blackheart]

Waiting for multiplayer. Single player I don't care that there's no buildable buildings, but multiplayer needs them (even if they're just buildable landing pands inside your home territroy) in order to enhance teching restrictions.

[CoatedTrout]

WOOH!

All sounds nice for the campaign, and I am happy to know that they are concentrating on the little things as well.

Noble I summon ye! Update yon sticky!

As for the base building issue, I emplore relic to include both skirmish and the RTT like campaign mode as options, to keep everyone happy.

[Unsung Duck]

I'm confused I thought we were going to have bases on a much smaller scale and now were not getting them at all? It seems each new preview contradicts the last.

The comic book intro reminds of the pre-mission CoH intros, which I really liked because of their simple, yet extreamily effective style.

[Blackheart]

I think it would be best to have two gaming options... the traditional CoH/DoW style game, and then a W40K TT like game where you choose the armies you start with, with in-depth customization and a points limit. Could have options to keep units in reserve as well.

[Quak0r]

As i stated before: the guys from GameStar only saw the first two missions and if understand the article correct they only sad that they saw no buildings not that one of the devs in particular said "there are no buildings"

Now while i'm 100% NOT considering the multiplayer it could be very possible that the progression in the singleplayer also is a progression in the tec tree ( as usual in SP in games like c&c or dow clasic or any other older RTS game). so my idea is that as you progress throug the champaign step by step you are able to build more advanced units AND use things like forward bases or defence structures ( with a introduction misson for it like hold possision A for X mins). And as the first couple of missions only show the basic unit that is availeble from the start or/and dropdown ( SM example) there are no need for buildings in those missions.
Now you se anoter thing i forgot to menion is that the article sais the game is ~60% done so if my theory is correct its possible that the devs simply did not show the more advanced stuff JET because it's not finished beeing implemented in the champaign.

Cheers,......hope it makes any sense ^^

[Moe]

Ah well that makes more sense then :)

[Blackheart]

I wish they'd stop posting these things then, it's really shitty reporting IMO.

[Thuraash]

Jet? Like Jet from Fallout? In Champaigne?! Where? I wanna fly with some bubbly! :D
:stick:
Just messing, Quak0r, thanks for all the info!

OK, big post (I think you can see that, though.) This basically sums up my view on strategy games, and though it doesn't delve into the "life in general" category, it's got enough pseudo-drama in there to make it feel like it. :D Fax, this isn't a rant against you, per se, though your post did get me started and some of the questions are directed at you (as well as several other people of similar views).

Anyway, Fax, is building the same base (or a very similar version of the same thing) over and over for the first 3 minutes of every single game REALLY the most fun you have in an RTS? And how does a lack of bases turn this into a shooter? And you're going to pick armored bears being shot out of man-cannons over Assault Space marines? Really?

Actually... now that I think of it, armored bears are cool, and them being shot over enemy bases in man-cannons does sound rather awesome, too, but still, doesn't hold a candle to Space Marines!

...

That build a base on water mechanic is really sweet too...

...

By the by, a lack bases doesn't make DoW2 any less of an RTS than a game where buildings, for whatever reason, are placed in the middle of a freakin' warzone. The gameplay will be more focused on combat, and on tactical management. If the game starts edging in on the realm of RTT games, then I say it's about time!

Relic has actually been moving in this direction for ages: Homeworld 2 (and I believe the original as well) had no bases, in the traditional sense, and was awesome. DoW started to emphasize depth in combat and squad mechanics, and CoH took it to the next level, to the point that buildings and bases are practically an afterthought (I mean, really, you punch an F key and queue whatever you want, set rally point and get the hell back to managing your troops, unless you LIKE to see them roasted).

This no-bases deal is not surprising at all, and if anyone can pull it off right, it's Relic. Massive's good too, and I find WiC (and the Ground Control games, for that matter) to be loads of fun, but really, they aren't in the same league of quality as Relic, and their combat mechanics don't have the same depth. Even RA3 looks like it's shifting towards a more micro-heavy and nuanced gameplay style, albeit, in it's own wacky way, with all the special abilities for units and the like.

The step away from the tried, and I would contend, tired, "standard" RTS format championed by Westwood (now with EA) and then Blizzard is showing its age, and the base-building is really just a pain in the rear.

If you really want that stuff, then by all means, hold out for the massive black storm-cloud on the horizon that is SCII, and go ahead and have mindless units smash other mindless units in a mindless melee (with reprehensible pathing! Can't they spread out and then crash into the enemy troops as an intelligent, mutually aware army, instead of running in a line and scrambling to find a dance partner all willy nilly?!) while you look at your base to build your third gateway to spawn more mindless units, then by all means, go for it. You'll probably be joined by another 10 million (including me, but for the campaign only... I really like SC story, despite the gameplay from 1998).

However, I DO want DoW2 to break the mould (sp?), and I DO want it to be something innovative and different, that's never been done before. If bases are in the way of Relic's vision, then out with them! I don't want another cookie-cutter base-and-tech-tree RTS; I want something to make my jaw drop.

When i first saw the combat in HW2 (I was late on the boat, never saw HW), the first words out of my mouth were probably "holy shit... they can DO THAT?!" I NEVER thought that interceptors would actually dogfight, and that I'd see the shots that made the killing blow land. I never expected to see burn-marks where powerful shots landed on cap ships, and I couldn't imagine the notion of not really having a base, or what base there was just zapping into hyperspace at the drop of a hat.

I'm also betting I'm not alone among the people who just d/l'd the DoW demo without knowing much about it, seeing the opening cinematic and going "that's awesome! I wish they made games that played like that!" I think I was back to the HW2 impression when I saw the first sync kill, and then I bailed right out of campaign, kicked up a skirmish on the lowest difficulty with max resources and bee-lined my way up the tech-tree, straight to a dreadnought, just to see if THAT would pick up, crush and hurl Orks about the place like the intro suggested too. I think my smile split my face in two that time.

Do I need to go over the first time I saw the infantry AI in CoH in action? Or the new squad mechanics? Or the new cover system? I think I've made my point...:D

Anyway, short story VERY long (oh wow... it IS long... dang...), I don't want just another game. I want Relic to go where no developer dared, and to again change the way we think of strategy games. I trust Relic to do so, and to do so with style. Not to mention, I really like the direction they, as well as Massive, have taken, emphasizing intense, tactically challenging combat, and cutting the fat.

/end rant.

whew... *ices fingers*

[Blackheart]

Thuraash: Rather than build buildings, how about just making people take infantry units off the front line to prepare landing sites for the more advanced units and vehicles?

And this has been argued elsewhere by myself and others, but a base is crucial to ensure a comeback mechanic. Even if it's just a set of impenetrable walls and some turrets to keep out enemies and some space to land new troops, with no actual building, having an area to fall back to, where you can safely repair, regenerate, rearm, reinforce, etc. in preparation for the next push makes it so that even if you lose one engagement, you can still come back and win. the next one and the defeat won't be anywhere near as crushing of a blow.

[Vijil]

Thuraash wins the thread.

btw I've just read the entire (awesome four page) PCPowerplay preview, and from my reading it looks as though the default multiplayer mode wont have buildings either - rather it's a more RTT like choose your army and go fight style thing. Why they'd go to the trouble of designing, modelling and programming buildings just to allow a gamestyle that they're clearly not focussing on is beyond me - so I don't think we can expect buildings *at all* even in MP. Good riddance I say. Go play SC2 if you want the same old, boring, completely unrealistic gameplay. That's just my logical deduction.

Blackheart, there are other ways to use a comeback mechanic without buildings per se. We know already that strategic locations will be in game. This means that it's likely reinforcements can be brought in late game depending on A: what you chose to save for reinforcements pre game and B: whether you can afford it.

[Blackheart]

Vijil: Which doesn't matter if the enemy is able to effortlessly take over the landing spot for your called-in units and you have no safe haven in which to reinforce and repair injured units/vehicles.

[Thuraash]

I win? Sweet! *Victory dance*

Blackheart, I'm sure they'll figure out a way to implement some way for comebacks to occur. There are plenty of ways to do it without a base. At the simplest level, they could do it through map design, combined with a reinforcement system like TT, where you can only drop most of your troops into one edge of the map. I'm hoping they don't restrict themselves to this, though, since dropping reinforcements into the heat of the battle seems quite attractive.

[Vijil]

Blackheart, you can probably bring in drop pods wherever you have line of sight, so a landing pad isn't needed.

That and part of the game is holding onto strategic locations anyway - if it's effortless for the other player then you need to reconsider your strategy.

(heehee check out the userbar I just made... anyone can feel free to use it)

[stopgap]

in all honesty, i haven't yet fallen of the fence on the base/no base issue. I intend to reserve judgement until i actually see how the no base idea is realized. Relic has done well enough (for me), to put a little trust into their gameplay decisions (at least until i play it and find it lacking).

[Kaldaris]

The Intro is like a animated comic (comic in the style of wh40k, more like grim drawings)

Awww, no slick realistic CGI goodness? That's ok, I trust Relic's Artistic senses. The Homeworld series cinematics were simply black/white animated concept art and were masterfully done. Actualy, now that I think about it, It sounds like Relic is aiming for animated versions of those awesome 40k drawings that we see in the Codices.

Imagine this animated.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v287/FarseerKaldaris/pic3-big.jpg

:cube:

[Achronos-117]

Im O.K. with no base building as long as you can set up emplacements (turrets,mines etc.). Still prefer normal base building though.

[Sturmtruppen]

well, im sure there will for fortifications like walls or whatever, other wise a small part of the physics engine will goto waste... i dont see why there shouldnt be mines or turrets for defences

[Blackheart]

I would prefer just basic base building. Like having a single HQ building that's obviously set up very quickly which has a landing pad for scout units, and then after that, just landing pads for the other units to be dropped in. And preferably turrets protecting it, but meh.

Space Marines would have a hulled down and fortified Damocles Command Rhino (http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/acatalog/damocles4store.jpg) at the edge of a small landing pad (http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/acatalog/smalllanding-pad-5store.jpg). Scouts and servitors would land there via drop pod much like they are on the barracks in the current DoW It could be upgraded to also recieve Tactical marines. Infantry or servitors could then clear a section of land for a larger landing pad (http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/acatalog/largelanding-pad-3store.jpg) which can support vehicle drops or larger numbers/heavier infantry drops. An upgrade to the command rhino would allow them to drop tac squads to locations where you have line of sight, and then a second upgrade would allow dreadnaught drops. A third upgrade would allow terminator teleportation within close proximity to a hero or a set up teleport beacon (which scouts could set up).

And then it would be slightly different for other factions, but at the same time, not too much so. Eldar would use webway gates, with a larger webway gate for vehicles and upgrades for the smaller gate for heavier infantry. Imperial Guard, Sisters of Battle, and Tau would be similar to Space Marines. Chaos could have shrines that allow for teleportation in. Necrons would have their monolith and no other buildings. Orks are the only ones that I have a problem immagining. I'm thinking that for infantry, they get dropped down via a rok or called in literally from off-map (walking on-map), and then their vehicles actually get built on-map by Meks and their grot servants (much like buildings would be), out of the rubble of roks or wreckage from other vehicles. Upgrades to the Mek's retinue or multiple Meks would allow for better vehicles, and for the Boyz, I guess it would be based on a combination of how long the fight's been going on, how many kills they've gotten, and how many of them that have been killed that would determine what kind of Boyz they can get.

[Smit1000]

From my understanding and from various sources i have read like magazines i have purchased, i think there will be base building, just not on the ground. Your base will be a mothership, a spaceship high above the planet.

You will upgrade this ship as you gain resources (points on the battle field), pick up new items from the battle field (and return them to your mothership) and the like.

The way you send down troops from this ship is by holding a special new point on the map (different from strategic and relic points in orginal dow). For example - to win a multiplayer game you have to eliminate all your opponents transport points so we can not send down any more troops.

This mothership (the space marine one is called Battle barge) in single player will give the player an option from picking which planet and mission they want to do. It is very clever and will cease the need for ground base building. I do think turrets and defence items will be able to be sent down (but not built) from the mothership so do not worry turtlers.

[Thuraash]

The battle barge mechanic is looking really good so far. A persistent, customizable base. What more could you ask for the single player game? As for multi-player, I'd be a bit disappointed if the barge needed to be teched up every game, but it's certainly better than having a base to deal with.

[Vijil]

Mm, basically they've taken the persistent army/upgradeable mothership idea from Homeworld and put it in DoW - which is awesome. Persistent fleets were one of the best things about Homeworld. I grew a real attachment to my two salvaged Kadeshi frigates...

The persistent army - no bases - no resourcing thing is something that Relic have had in mind for quite a long time. It's good to see them making it happen.

[Blackheart]

A persistent army, however, doesn't necessarilly work for multiplayer. I'm skeptical about how this would work in a non-campaign system.

[Thuraash]

We haven't got any solid details on the multiplayer yet beyond what Smit1000 alluded to in this thread, AFAIK. I'm guessing there will be resources of some sort.

[fs_xyz]

Requirement lower than COH ? Sins of Solar Empire really brought some effects toward game developers.
Hmm... could it be the game will use Homeworld style of drawing ? ( but this time using WH40K artwork )

I'm still curious about how Orks reinforce their squad. Don't tell me they will grow mushroom/fungus or the like.

[Akranadas]

The Intro is like a animated comic (comic in the style of wh40k, more like grim drawings)

If you've played CoH or Homeworld, you'll know what style this is.

[Torbert]

That battlebarge idea is pretty cool. I assume you won't be having those various warships actually fighting each other (if this is actually how they intend to do things). I also hope they keep some turrets and mines :).

[Pocktio]

Excellent, away from spamtech and my BO is 2.34564 miliseconds faster than you I will wtfbbqpwn you even if you kill my HQ and more towards people actually being good with their units and using special abilities and tactics!

[sardaukar69]

- The Intro is like a animated comic (comic in the style of wh40k, more like grim drawings)
- The huys from the magazine saw no on-map player-build buildings during the presentation
- Exploding Barrels
- Collapsing on-map buildings can apperently hurt nearby Units
- System requiernments NOT higher than for CoH (dev quote)
-Upgrades for the Hero
- 2 Slots for Weapons
- 1 for Armor
- 3 for support Items
- Squadmembers gain experience and if they die they can be replaced with new members on the field ( new = starting at 0 regarding the experience
- Bolterbarrels glow after shooting
- Posession of stratigic locations more important than in dow (this system was updated with a "innovative element")
- All info on the Singleplayer; NO Info on the Multiplayer in this article

Some additional information from the article, some facts may already be known though:

- The player can choose from different missions to begin, setting a path with which will exclude him from playing certain other missions - this should add to replayability.
- Boss fights in the vein of the teaser trailer - the opponents will start into a fully animated fight after a short verbal exchange. These duels are basically scripted, yet the player retains control over certain special maneuvers.
- There's an Ork campaign
- Co-op mode
- Article mentions upgrades like poisoned ammo for bolters and powered barbs for chainswords.

[Shuma]

poisoned ammo for bolters

What? Ok, i don't claim to be an expert in Imperium Fluff, but... this doesn't sound fluffy. At All.

Aniway, if there's no base building as in SM don't have bases or you just don't get them in SP then that's awesome, more thna awesome. But if it means No Bases AT ALL for every race and for every gameplay mode then it Stinks, Sucks and Fucks.

[fneep]

Article mentions upgrades like poisoned ammo for bolters and powered barbs for chainswords

Sounds more like an innacurate translation to me.

[jon_the_d]

Which doesn't matter if the enemy is able to effortlessly take over the landing spot for your called-in units and you have no safe haven in which to reinforce and repair injured units/vehicles.

I'm with Vijil on this one. If you have lost all territorial control, and have nowhere to land something....you've already lost.

I can;t see player built walls being in, they never were, and how are they gonna do it? what with (most likely) no player buildings and therefore probably no player builder unit.

here's what I see bases doing:
A)-force a choice about req expenditure: units or buildings; increase force size now, or advance tech level.
B)-vulnerability of your tech level: The level you have teched to can be taken back down if the right buildings are destroyed.

just these two I think....safe haven? don't think so. not unless you've spent way too much on turrets (if you hadn't spent that req on turrets you probably wouldn't have had to fall back in the first place.)

anyway, about the above points:
A) I'm curious to see what will happen if we don't need to spend req (if there is req?) on buildings. There won't need to be that careful balancing act behind base building and force building. Only force building? that's cool I guess, just mean the tactics come down to what to call in.
B) The vulnerability of your tech is easily done, just using point control instead of physical buildings. your tech level dependant on how many points you control....If apoint is lost to the enemy, your tech level may go down. Easily done, but I'm not sure I like this way. It tips the batlle evermore infavour of the player with the upperhand, giving very little chance for a fair fight and a comeback. It marks the "tipping point", where good players will realise that the game has already been decided.

Having said that, if the troops we have to call in are chosen by us beforehand anyway (i thought I read that somewhere? choose which units to take into battle each mission?), I'm not sure there will be in-battle teching. Instead it might just be a territory/resource system that you spend on bringing your units to the battle, but obviously which units was decided beforehand (perhaps in SP by some overall battlebarge teching) In MP players perhap scan choose which tech level they wish to play at, and tehn choose their troops secretly beforehad (much like TOTAL WAR, but different in the sense that they don't all get deployed at once? and you have to earn the right to bring them in)

There's so much we don;t know about the game, we still have NO idea how it will actually function. But I'm still convinced.

No bases is a good thing.

[sardaukar69]

Sounds more like an innacurate translation to me.

Nope, that's what it says in the article. I might not be a native English speaker, but you can trust me on this one.

[Rednova88]

I'm indeed happy about the no base building. It means that when people play they'll actually have to be cautious and intelligent. No more building 4 barracks and spamming generalist units and sending them all to a way point like you do in many RTS games. Don't get me wrong, I love other RTS games, but I was never able to play online with anyone other than my close friends, since everyone just wants to rush you with T1 so they can win and feel special. It seems like DoW2 will take some inspiration from Ground Control, which makes me happy! I do however hope that they will allow you to fortify positions with turrets and/or mines.

Also... Hearing that DoW2 won't have higher specs than CoH relieved me incredibly, now I don't have to dread buying upgrades for my computer. If I can play DoW2 on at least medium settings with minimal lag I'm happy!

[sporty]

If I read this correctly, it said base building was largely removed, not completely removed.

Blame the "poison ammo" part on the mag-author's inexperience with the WH40k universe, but aren't there special "Anti-Xenos" rounds used by Deathwatch marines?

[ricolikesrice]

normally dont buy hyping mainstream....err gaming magazines anymore, but for DoW2 preview i had to make an exception :p

and i really love what i was reading so far (only exception beeing the small things like "space marine hostages" or "poisoned bolter shells", i.e. unfluffly crap but i d bet thats just gamestar talk and relic will stay true to fluff, though the idea of an ork waghboss sending a letter to the emperor demanding credits to release his astartes hostages made me at least smile.... )

now i just need someone from relic to confirm that DoW2 will ship with a good editor like SC/WC3 so players can make their own campaigns / single player missions and this might easily become my most anticipated title even over SC2.

[konfeta]

In reference to poisoned ammo - they are probably talking about Hellfire bolter rounds. You know, the Plot Powered ammo SMurfs use to fight Tyranids. It's fairly fluffy.

In reference to base building - the problem with excluding bases will come if they have no suitable replacement for it. The yawn-inducing World in Conflict proved that admirably; it stops being a strategy game and becomes a tactical game. Not a bad thing in itself, but I would prefer DoW to remain an RTS and advance the genre rather then abandon it entirely.

In reference to explosive barrels - O.K., what the fuck? I realize that these things are the classical element that transcends all genres, but can we do without that? At least, let it NOT be god damned barrels?

[Thuraash]

Remember the ammo crates in that one CoH mission? And how well they blew up? I think that's the sort of thing they're referring to.

Poisoned ammo just sounds strange for WH40K. What's special about hellfire rounds?

[Techlology]

If you've played CoH or Homeworld, you'll know what style this is.

I'm playing CoH, and I'm getting no intro whatsoever, what is this animated comic style you speak of? :moefixed:

[fs_xyz]

Did you ever play sins of solar empire ? That game also use the same style.
The only difference is, Homeworld use black and white and SOSE use colored style.

[Fightingfirst]

Does the two weapon slots bit refer to how many upgrades you can have in a squad? For example lets say SM are squads of 6 then 2 of them can upgrade to heavy bolter?

[konfeta]

I imagine it's individual. Like a Power Sword and a Bolter Pistol.

@Thuraash
You don't understand, or you haven't played enough games. It's a freaking obsession with over half the game developers out there - if it's a game that involves guns it will have a barrel you shoot that explodes. Explosive barrels put all over the place, with no justifications, that explode with force ranging from a bazooka shot (FPS and takes out tanks) to nukes (annihilates buildings and armies in RTS).

Some actually move off barrels and occasionaly (gasp, the rebels!) include explosive boxes. Get this. Explosive boxes.

HOLY SHIT GUYS, CREATIVITY POURING THROUGH EVERY HOLE IN THE WALL!


What's special about hellfire rounds?


You know, the Plot Powered ammo SMurfs use to fight Tyranids. It's fairly fluffy.

A simple google search (an ancient, forgotten, and arcane skill on this strange land of internet, apparently) would have revealed something like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapons_of_the_Imperium_(Warhammer_40,000)#Bolt_Ammunition

[Eisenhorn538]

Phew! For a minute I thought base building was being thrown out the window entirely. Looks like the magazine didn't see that much of the game so there's still a high chance buildings are there or Relic are still working on them.

I just hope they don't go down the route of picking your army before battle in MP. The Total War games have that and their MP got boring extremely quickly. In Rome it was basically just spam your most powerful infantry unit, add some cavalry, maybe a few onagers and you win. Any deviation from that build order and you got your ass kicked by any halfway decent player. And with the huge differences between factions in 40K it would be really hard to balance such a mode.

It looks like they're either going with minimal CoH style bases or a combination of WiC drop zones and an upgradable battle barge to control teching. After that they just need to add the abilty to create defensive structures and we're golden.

[darkpriest99]

Looks interesting... IMO it looks like we will have tech tree based on something like command points from doctrine trees from CoH, i.e. for controlling SP we will receive some kind of resources boost and we will be able to call units from off the map. there will be one control sectro which if you will loose you've lost the game, and maybe some basic defensive emplacments. Teching will be done only via acquiring CPs in combat and such. I guess that defensive emplacments will be available. Bolter turrets etc. This will be more fluffy won't it? and still no so much different from DoW and CoH?

[Blackheart]

- There's an Ork campaign

*does the happy dance*

[jon_the_d]

the upgrade slots listed were specifically listed as commander upgrade slots. so two weapon slots will be pistol and CC option I'd imagine.

[Thuraash]

Konfeta: Thanks for the link. As for your post, if you read mine a few pages back, you'll see that I've played quite enough games over the years, but it seems like I've somehow avoided this barrel fetish for the most part. Actually, the only games that I can think of that featured them are Monolith (F.E.A.R.), and Valve. They seemed a bit out of place in HL2, but in FEAR, they were well integrated in the environments, like propane containers where you'd expect there to be propane containers and the like.

As for RTS's, I don't actually recall any that had the explosive barrels, and I've played through quite a lot of them: C&C Gold, TibSun, Emperor: Battle for Dune, Generals, BfME, C&C3, RA, RA2, SC, WCIII, GCII, HW2, DoW, CoH, WiC, Sins of a Solar Empire, SupCom. As such, I'm at a bit of a loss here, since this seems like quite the tour de force of strategy games published in the past decade and a half (absent TA). What games are you referring to? The only one that included anything remotely similar was that one CoH mission with the weapon caches, that didn't do very much damage when they went up, anyway. They just looked cool.

[Noir]

You played RA 1 and didn't see the explosive barrels? :wtf:

First mission. Allied Campaign. You actually NEED the barrels there to finish that mission IIRC.

[LoneWolf666]

C&C, RA, Emperor:BfD, Generals, C&C3, RA2 ALL have exploding barrels...

[Shaitan]

Exploding barrels have been a staple of video gaming since Doom (at least). I'm not too worried about the no buildings thing seeing as how they just didn't see any player buildings in the singleplayer demo or whatever you want to call it.

[Talonfire]

Exploding barrels haven't been in many RTS games, but they were definitely in the Red Alert games, and Tiberium Wars in campaign missions. I don't recall them in the original C&C and Tiberian Sun, but I may be wrong.

[fs_xyz]

I wonder if we can get a marine with dual hand gun... Cypher style.
Or dual wielding melee weapons for assault marine.

[Imperial Dane]

probably not, that would be a bit excessive i imagine. At the moment i am more curious as to the status of base building, as i would rather have it in like it was in DoW, with the possibility of converting civilian buildings to military use, i mean i could easily imagine the imperial guard converting a bunch of buildings to their use.

Though if they remove it i would imagine they pull of some clever trick and not turn this into a WiC clone.. which to be honest, never really caught me on as Ground Control 2 did, which still wasn't as fun as DoW.

@Blackheart: I don't think that is anything news, so far it's been either space marine and ork campaign or campaign for all races..

[Esa]

The intro is like an animated comic

CoH style, that would be.

[Asiriya]

So, basically, this is just a mod for CoH, albeit with a couple of features not present like the jump packs? Bit disappointing, beautiful as CoH is, would be nice to know it was changed a little. I'm not liking the idea of a WiC style of gameplay, and I hope they alter it somewhat from CoH/DoW, or will it just be the same game but with different models/ better graphics.

[Imperial Dane]

@Asiriya: Okay, what are you basing that assesment on ? Because if it goes towards a WiC style gameplay (which i hope it won't) Then it definately won't be CoH, i mean the campaign will definately be different, sure units will have some similarities, but there will be improvements, and if you are thinking squads, well then you might as well say CoH is a DoW mod.

I mean at the moment we know not too much, we know little of the resource system, little of the buildings (hell if there are ones beyond the ones already on the map) Commanders definately aren't a part of CoH though.. and on could go on, but saying it is a CoH clone is much to early, at this stage of information, you would be more or less saying that CoH is a DoW clone.. and we all know that it isn't that.

[LoneWolf666]

Yes, the similarities to WiC are so overwhelming - no base building and... uh...
Personally I think the flaw in WiC was it's resource system - the game rewarded you for losing units.

"Hey, I lost an Abrams! One more and I can call in an Apache!"

This does not seem to be the case here. Although the resource and reinforcement systems remain to be revealed, you lose experienced soldiers and gain newbies in their place which already is punishing.

[Ludovsky]

If I was to make a far-fetched hypothesis, I'd almost feel they'd go with a "players selected pre-game army loadout", and permit you to bring out units depending on how much of a strategic control of the map you'd be able to get, thus limiting bringing out "uber units" only for when a player would be able to get a big enough control of the map for then.

[Thuraash]

Ah... I should have put in the note that I never actually played the RA campaign... just the multiplayer, lol. I didn't much care for the RA story.

As for WiC resources, I agree, it's kinda dumb to get a boost to your resources for losing units. Hopefully Relic will go for something better.

[jon_the_d]

newbies?

In SP all your troops will be from your persistent squads on the battlebarge, which are not gonna be newbies surely...and as for MP, it'll more likely be that all squads will have been levelled out somewhat, unless your expecting in-battle levelling? which I find doubtful.

apart from that, I didn't think you could lose a squad in SP? I thought ALL your squad leaders had to survive otherwise it's a FAIL!....which means the same persistent squads throughout the game....even if the marines in the squad get replaced.

[LoneWolf666]

Yes, newbies, according to


- Squadmembers gain experience and if they die they can be replaced with new members on the field ( new = starting at 0 regarding the experience

this. I'd imagine it hurts to lose the most experienced battle brother in the field. :)

[jon_the_d]

ok right....thanks.

but are we under the impression they'll be reinforced in battle? or replaced after the mission back in the battle barge?

I was kinda hoping they were moving away from the "reinforce anywhere, as much as you can afford" type reinforce mechanic.

Do you think we also get this levelling to our troops in MP?

[Eisenhorn538]

CoH has veterancy so yes. The lack of a veterancy system in DoW was one of the few bad things about the game IMO.

[Blackheart]

LoneWolf: The main problem with WIC is that it's horribly, HORRIBLY repetative. Maybe DoW2 can do RTT while avoiding the repetative nature of WIC. Maybe.

If I'm going to play RTT games, though, I'd prefer to play them with a 4x style mapping and economy system like in the Total War series...

[Deathwing]

poisoned ammo for bolters

Perhaps this isn't final. There could be an upgrade which makes the Bolter rounds stronger. For example SM get an upgrade ( Deathwatch Bolter ) and Orks simply get Bigger Guns as an upgrade.

I don't know if it was mentioned somewhere else: In the article, there is a picture of a Blood Raven, carrying a PLASMA CANNON. :banana:

Other things ( perhaps already mentioned ):

- troops automatically search for cover ( if there is none, they'll try to blast a crater in the ground to get cover )
- troops can hide in buildings and fire from the windows

[jon_the_d]

troops automatically search for cover ( if there is none, they'll try to blast a crater in the ground to get cover )

seriously? they do that without instruction? hmmm....unexpected.

could be good though. I mean, if you can make cover, why wouldn't you?

oh, yeah, also PLASMA CANNON!!!!!WOOOOO!!!!

[Techlology]

Woot! the ai just gets better and better!

[ImmortalChaos]

So my units will be randomly disobeying orders and trying to get to cover?


...Lame...

[jon_the_d]

@ IC,

no, not disobeying orders. if there's cover where you've put them they'll use it. and there's proabbly a stance you can put them on if you insist on them standing in the open even though there's a nice wall a few metres to the right.

[LoneWolf666]

- troops automatically search for cover ( if there is none, they'll try to blast a crater in the ground to get cover )

So my Devastator squad standing in the middle of the field will suddenly start bringing their plasma cannons, rocket launchers and lascannons to bear and start blasting at the poor soil to make cover? :D That's hilarious. :p

Wherever you move your squad, there is explosions galore!

I seriously do not think this info is accurate. :p Perhaps it only occurs in combat (or you have to do it manually anyway)?

[ImmortalChaos]

A few meters to the right can be the difference between shooting without getting hit whatsoever and shooting in cover but actually taking returning fire.

I dearly hope there will be a way to turn automatic cover seeking off.

[Imperial Dane]

and uhm.. perhaps you are just taking this in the wrong way, i mean the units in CoH sought cover as well, didn't create it by themselves. If they aren't taking fire they won't be seeking cover i imagine, but on the other hand, if they are taking a serious amount of fire, they probably won't be standing in the middle of the road.

[Blackheart]

Yeah, in CoH, they tend to gravitate towards some cover or other in the middle of combat, and avoid negative cover or open terrain if possible. Because most of them want to survive after all. Some units or factions wouldn't do this, of course... daemons, tyranids, units such as the Repentia who are too crazy or suicidal to care, and choppy orks and other melee based units.

[Ruined]

Perhaps this isn't final. There could be an upgrade which makes the Bolter rounds stronger. For example SM get an upgrade ( Deathwatch Bolter ) and Orks simply get Bigger Guns as an upgrade.

I don't know if it was mentioned somewhere else: In the article, there is a picture of a Blood Raven, carrying a PLASMA CANNON. :banana:

Other things ( perhaps already mentioned ):

- troops automatically search for cover ( if there is none, they'll try to blast a crater in the ground to get cover )
- troops can hide in buildings and fire from the windows

There was also a pic of a Wartrukk and some Stormboyz on the last page :twisted:

[Fightingfirst]

Im looking foreward to seeing sm scouts with sniper rifles hiding in a building and pinning down a unit with out the enemy knowing whose shooting them

[Warp Holder]

- Boss fights in the vein of the teaser trailer - the opponents will start into a fully animated fight after a short verbal exchange. These duels are basically scripted, yet the player retains control over certain special maneuvers.

I hope it is not like the Mark of Chaos Duel system.

[Exsequien]

Im looking foreward to seeing sm scouts with sniper rifles hiding in a building and pinning down a unit with out the enemy knowing whose shooting them

Yeah I would love to see that :) nearly as much as the Khorne berserkers who storm the building afterwards :D (at least I HOPE you can storm buildings with melee units)

[Thuraash]

- troops automatically search for cover ( if there is none, they'll try to blast a crater in the ground to get cover )

Awesome! If they can do that, it would be incredible! I'm hoping they are more creative about cover creation than literally blasting a hole in the ground, though... that may look odd...

[sardaukar69]

I hope it is not like the Mark of Chaos Duel system.

Most definitely not. Did you see the teaser trailer with the Force Commander beating the shit out of the Ork Boss? This is what Boss duels are supposed to look like. The article emphasizes that those duels are staged like fully animated script sequences with the player remaining in control to launch special attacks. Dunno how exactly this is going to work but imho, this doesn't sound like primitive hack'n slay animations as featured in Mark of Chaos.
You guys don't really trust the translation skills of us German speakers eh?

[Fish Of Doom]

nein :p


this game is going to own, there's no doubt about it.

[Droids_R]

I seriously do not think this info is accurate. Perhaps it only occurs in combat (or you have to do it manually anyway)?

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss. Space Marine Bolters are practically miniature rockets. I think blowing a hole in the ground wouldn't be too hard. :p

[Thuraash]

Hahaha, it's just a goofy image, units pounding rockets into the ground to make cover, but I can totally see it as effective.

I don't know why people are so scared of units doing vaguely intelligent things themselves. As a commander, you're in charge of strategic and general tactical decisions, not of when a Johnson on the flamer is allowed to take a bathroom break in the bushes. If the units can decide when it may be a bright idea to improvise a fox-hole, I'll be blown away (Yeah, it's a horrid pun... so sue me) to see them do it... with bolters, no less! At the same time, it seems like a rather time-consuming process, so I would imagine that this would probably be manual, like building sand-bags. I'm just hoping they're smart about using rubble and stuff that was't actually built into the map as cover. I mean, CoH used tank husks and the like, so why not building rubble? If it can kill you, why not have it also be able to save your life, just for irony's sake, if nothing else? ("Blow dat buildin' up and land it on dere headz!" "Errr, boss! The buildin' missed, and naw they'z hidin' behind da pieces!")

As for the boss battles, I can't imagine Relic doing something as ridiculous as those duels in MoC. It's not as though they didn't rip the idea right out of Harry Potter, anyway...

[jon_the_d]

The boss duels are surely campaign only, what with it being scripted. It's obviously made so you win, but it shows it in a cool way that you retain some control over.

This is asssuming that you confront the boass at the end of a mission. Remeber in DOW when you reach the chaos lord? there's like a scripted duel that you win. I think this is just a step up from that. much better graphics and animation, and some control over the moves you pull. but I doubt you can lose....(?)

[Oakwarrior]

You guys don't really trust the translation skills of us German speakers eh?

I myself don't trust the German magazine reporter :)

[Bravus]

well, the article says that troops will take cover automatically. that's propably the same mechanism as in CoH. the article also says, that troops can use crates and the likes as cover, and will do so automatically if some big explosion (like the oil barrel) leaves a crate.
there is no word about units using their weapons or granades to actually create cover, if there's none. that seems to be just misinterpreted by the translation here.

[Soso]

On page 29 the description in the upper screenshot says that the unit-AI will look for cover. It also says that who doesn't find any blows a crater into the ground.

The question is what the word "who" refers to. Some people here seem to think that it refers to the player's units. I guess its safe to assume that it refers to the player. Units creating craters for cover themselves is just such a big thing that it would have been mentioned it in the main text (which is not the case).

[Croaxleigh]

Jon_the_D: Though I obviously haven't gone back to college, finished my German classes, and read the article, from the sound of it I don't think that's the case. I don't necessarily think they mean scripted in the sense you're thinking, a la the SCAR scripting in the opening/closing cinematics of missions... if I had to guess (which is all it would be, a guess), it'd work more like starting a more elaborate Sync Kill (or what are they called now, Extreeeeeeeeme! Kills or somesuch?) that still allows player input on specific leader abilities. Though I have nothing to back this theory up, nothing in the info provided on DoW2 thus far suggests that the "commander duels" would be an end-of-mission thing or that you wouldn't be able to lose them. Otherwise it'd be FC + rush enemy base to engage commander = gg.

As always, of course, complete speculation on my part.

[jon_the_d]

we are talking about single player campaign here yeah? not MP. do you not remember the final showdown between Gabe and the chaos guy? you couldn't just run straight to him and finish the mission.

That's what I'm talking about. Single player climaxes to structured missions. not just in a skirmish whenever two bosses meet. how would that even work? was there a game where they tried this, was it MoC commander dueling? where the battle stopped to focus on the duel? I didn't think it went down well with the players. and I didn;t think RELIC would try something similar, where play is interupted to do some kind of semi controlled show piece duel?

is that what you mean?

[Exsequien]

Maybe there are no cutscenes but interactive movies :D

[[IG8]Kasrkin Sturnn]

i loved base building though and creating units!, i just think that if they dont have base buildings in dawn of war 2, it wouldn't feel like the other dawn of wars and dawn of war 2 will just be a game-in-itself and really be leading away from the previous dawn of wars...maybe to produce units you could send em down from a erm battle barge from outer space like most armies do when they go to attack a world?, that could kinda take the place of building a base..i'd still buy dawn of war 2 even if you cant build a base...but i still think it wont be the same as the other dawn of wars...

[sardaukar69]

The boss duels are surely campaign only, what with it being scripted. It's obviously made so you win, but it shows it in a cool way that you retain some control over.

This is asssuming that you confront the boass at the end of a mission. Remeber in DOW when you reach the chaos lord? there's like a scripted duel that you win. I think this is just a step up from that. much better graphics and animation, and some control over the moves you pull. but I doubt you can lose....(?)

I think you have a point here, that's exactly how I would imagine boss duels to be carried out. It wouldn't make sense to lose one's painstakingly upgraded FC to any dick-swinging mid-game Ork Boss - this would just prompt anybody to load the latest savegame.

There was something else mentioned in the article - small arms fire ricochets from armored units like Dreadnoughts, giving the player visible feedback as to which weapons are effective/ineffective to combat certain units.

[Croaxleigh]

Jon: I've never played Mark of Chaos, so I have no idea how the dueling works there. But I mean exactly what I said... the "duels" could very well be set up similar to more elaborate sync kills between the commanders. I never said anything about the action slowing down or stopping elsewhere. I'd be sorely disappointed if the "commander battle" thing was just a gimmick in the campaign missions, and it seems somewhat unlikely to me... why would Relic announce specific mission-ending spoilers in an article when all of the other info has been very generic and gameplay-oriented? "Yeah, you can shoot from in buildings, and jump in arcs, and smoosh Orks with your Dreads... oh, and when you get to the end of the mission, we have this cool battle between the FC and the Warboss!" It just doesn't fit in with the nature of the rest of the info released.

'Course, I could be wrong.

[Imperial Dane]

Well i did get the impression that the duels between commanders are something you can have some say in, but probably not as much as in Mark of Chaos i would imagine, but i am pretty sure it isn't just for the campaign in any case.

[Fightingfirst]

I wouldn't mind if the duels were a bit like MOC. What happens is that an enemy character will challange your character to a 1vs1 fight. No other person attacks these two characters but the battle rages on around them. Bassically, you then activate certain abilities of your character to help you gain an advantage. If you win your troops gain morale if you lose your troops lose moral. This could emulate challanges like in the TT version. You don't have to accept challanges either though but you lose some moral for not accepting. However, I'mnot quite sure how well this would work in DOW because characters don't have special abilities like the ones in MOC.

[Exsequien]

Which abilities did the commanders in MoC have? Couldn't they give something like that to DoW commanders too? Maybe only usable in duels

[Fightingfirst]

They had 3 types of abilities to choose and improve upon. Command (helped with moral), dueling (improved att or defense for a certain amount of time etc.) and abillities they'd use in normal combat (these would help against numerous foes i.e. an att that would hit all people in a certain radius or give you troops better att for a certain period. Before each battle in multiplayer when you where picking your army you had a certain number of points to spend on all the abilities. If they were to include this system they would have to give characters more abilities and make them more important in the army so they become killing machines.

[Mirage Knight]

According to a friend of mine, there are a couple of very cool items that were in the magazine article but weren't mentioned here yet.

• Lootas are in - and yes they can loot equipment.
• All units gain veterancy but fresh reinforcements are not vetted.
• Orbital Strikes do "dot" damage, similar to Wehr Nebelwerfers in COH.
• Bolters can be equipped with different ammo types, including Hellfire Bolts, that you can select before starting a mission. In fact all upgrading is done before missions - at least in the SP campaign.
• Units will automatically look for and use available cover.


In addition, a TT-style armour piercing and armour facing system is apparently in: The article mentions that small arms fire is useless against Dreadnaughts.

On the topic of no base building, that might only apply to the SP Missions.

[Blackheart]

In addition, a TT-style armour piercing and armour facing system is apparently in: The article mentions that small arms fire is useless against Dreadnaughts.
Yep, that was already in CoH, there'd be no reason for them to remove it from the Essence Engine.

[Mirage Knight]

Indeed - and definitely closer to TT :awesome:


It would seem that the Relic devs are picking up on the not-so subtle hints dropped by DOW TT-style mods like TTRU and DoW40K: FOK...about time I'd say :D ;)

[Fightingfirst]

Thank you for the info. I can't wait. What does the dot damage mean in regards to orbital bombardment. I haven't played COH.

[Noble]

DOT is a common acronym for Damage Over Time. Meaning that instead of doing a single amount of damage by itself, more and more damage is accrued slowly over time.

[Mirage Knight]

With regard to "DOT" damage...in COH, a Nebel rocket does initial damage and then leaves a small area burning. That fire does damage to a unit entering it, for as long as that unit stays there and for as long as the fire is still burning: For example, a unit entering the fire and remaining there takes 20 points of damage every 3 seconds.

[Blackheart]

Of course, nebelwerfers are different than most DoT abilities in that the initial blast also suppresses units. If a unit is hit by nebels and isn't able to negate suppression, they are essentially forced to retreat or die.

Also, in CoH, the retreat command increases speed and puts the units on the fastest route to the HQ building. They become harder to hit but can't fire weapons and you can't stop them from moving. I really hope the new game does not get rid of this, as it allows a good way to preserve infantry (vehicles don't get it, but then, they don't get suppressed).

[Demonhorde]

whooo hooo lootas! that's so mega orkky wonder what the ydo with the equipment, just pick it up and use it or horde it in their "base" for further upgrades?

[ImmortalChaos]

In addition, a TT-style armour piercing and armour facing system is apparently in: The article mentions that small arms fire is useless against Dreadnaughts.
If that's all that the article mentions, then it means nothing. In vanilla DoW one could describe small arms as being useless against a dreadnaught. Assuming that much from such a small peice of information is a mistake.

[Pocktio]

Mass tactical fire can kill hellfires quickly. If its using the same CoH engine it's more than likely to be implemented and as Relic have said vehicles are going to be supremely powerful and on a much smaller scale I'd lean to the side of 'small arms fire won't hurt dreadnoughts'.

[Mirage Knight]

If that's all that the article mentions, then it means nothing.

I haven't read the article myself so I can't say. That's just what a Austrian friend of mine told me.

In TT, the frontal armour of dreadnaughts is impervious to Bolter and Heavy Bolter fire. However, the rear armour can be penetrated by HB's and Bolters (Slugga Pistols, Shootas, and Shuriken Catapults as well).

Given that one of COH's strongest features is the implementation of armour facings on vehicles, it's a very good bet that this will show up in DOW2 as well to give the game a much more tactical feel than its predecessor by allowing for flanking attacks to exploit weaker armour.