Pacing in Dawn of War

[North Wolf]

I was expecting a slightly diffrent experience from Dawn of War then it turned out to be. That being said I have found Dawn of war to unusually fun (I got bored with Starcraft fast in its day), and I spend an absurd chunk of my time playing games in general.

I didnt really keep up with the hype, but early impressions of Dawn where promising, it was supposed to be a tactical game with an emphasis on defense and assaults (the innactive lp defense bonus is a legacy of this). I was hoping for a much slower paced experience.

Now to avoid any missunderstanding, Dawn is one of the best games to come out in ages in my opinion. Even with its fast paced and aggressive play style its heaps of fun.

My complaint with the fast pace, is becouse of the "trained monkey" syndrome. I feel like I spend way to much time in Dawn games doing things I´m "trained" to do, fast and effective like. Most of my planning takes place outside of the game rather then inside it, once a skirmish starts and I see the other race, I make sure I´m following the right "script" to counter whats going on. For all my complaints on this, I´m still finding it "fun" though.

Its hard to make slow paced games fun, I understand well why Dawn evolved into a more aggressive style then early concepts indicated. Dawn has an ace in the hole though, those armies are fantastic to watch (when you have time too!!) and this makes down time not so bad IMO.

So I´m just wondering if relic used the same engine to make a slower more tactical game would you guys dig that more or less then current Dawn? Personally I find Dawn to be an awsome game, but I would also love a game that used that engine for more set piece battles (closer to table top). Where handling your army is king and nothing else (slower, more tactical with your army "bought" before the battle).

Even if they used the same engine and even models (less dev time and cost), I would buy it again full price for a diffrent play experience. Am I only one? :werd:

Note: I beat the SP campaign four times simply becouse I loved having time to watch my battles unfolding undistracted by the risk of having my base or lps go poof in seconds while away. Playing the same thing four times over and still having fun, says alot imo, and I doubt I´m the only one that beat the SP silly often.

[R4id3n]

Well, I'm glad you're liking it as much as I do.

Obviously, your playing style is not like that of most competitive players out there. I'm of the same kind.
I love to watch replays, not only because of the opportunity to learn from mistakes, but also because I just love the look and feel of it! I love the detail of the models and buildings.

So, yes, I would certainly purchase a more of a Total War 40K type of game.

But I have to say that the multiplayer aspect of DoW is even more rewarding. There's no single game I enjoy more than DoW when playing with my buddies. 2v2 is the best ever.
I even save the replays and watch them afterwards.

But one thing: I think the game is very tactical. True, there is a sort of "script" that one goes through, but you have to make decisions based on the situation in the game. It's not like - this happens, then I do this. Then this will happen, and I do that.

A pure battle game without resources an building would have several disadvantages:
- it would involve a lot of micro - individual troop management - right from the beginning.
- it would not allow you to "come back" - most rewarding win in my opinion
- it would take about 5 minutes. (I played a FFA this morning that took 50 minutes!!)

Well, I tell you what: The IG expansion will make for a new experience, new models, new units, new things to watch. Let's hope time will pass quickly!

[BlueJackal]

All RTSes likely suffer from trained monkey syndrome. At least until the game gets very well balanced. DoW is fairly balanced, but still has some inconsistancies. Like Eldar vrs. Eldar matches are decided by Warp Spiders and support platforms. The matches are still fun, but ideally other units should be usable.

I probably wouldn't shell out another $50, seeing as how I enjoy this game a goodly amount and like the pace of it. Though I do hate how early rushing can be so effective. You have had the chance to make basically one strategic (build order) decision, and if you mess up, you're sunk.

[.42.]

Professional Chess players spends countless hours preparing for games. They memorize openning that can be 20 moves long pluss their variations. They practice how to play open games and closed games. They study the end game with scientific scruteny. That's all done before the first move is made. Is Kasparov a trained mokey just because he uses the opennings, strategies and end games he has memorized to guide his play?

[Rapier]

No, however, if that's all he did, then yes, DoW isn't a full monkey game (warcraft is closer) but it still, mmm, it lacks some tactical depth (Not compared to industry standards), compared to what I would like it to posses.

I believe the problems in that sense are that, offence is significantly stronger than defence, it's possibly to level a base in 1 minute? It takes about 3 to level an army that can level a base in 1 minute (assuming balanced forces).

Ideally you want a game where defence and offence work out equal (so they your decisions and the enemies effect the outcome). It's difficult to balance because if they're equal defence will probably lead to teching. (What you really need is scaling anti-building power and building strength throughout each tier then you can choose to spend on defense or offense as you upgrade).

Another problem is the lack of units. I think this especially shows on SM, (Who basically unlock all there tier 1 units in order... well great, that gives me options +.-), Chaos are slightly better because they can choose to get horrors and possessed (however it's not really viable, if this was modified then Chaos would become very tactically viable even at tier 1). Eldar lead since they have access to six infantry units within a minute or so, giving them the most options and the least predictability (although given the nature of there units, they still have to get correct counters, so you can usually tell what will be coming). Ork have options too, but mostly they just have, orks, orks with guns, and orks with various changed armaments.

I have hope that the units in the expansion will round out all the races giving them more options, therefore making various strats more attractive (right now vehicles tech is most popular, and infantry tech not so much, besides for chaos). If you look at warcraft3 (which has less depth than DoW) the addition of the Frozen throne units (only 3 per side) was sufficient to greatly enhance available strats and counters, making the game more dynamic and less predictable.

[Jewdie]

Looks like someone doesn't get what DoW is about. It's not a game where you can turtle safely behind your turrents. It's about going out and fight for map control, otherwise you die.

[Sps]

jew-die first your name is shit, second you miss his point entirely.

This forum I thought didn't allow racism?

(and no i am not a jew)

[Jewdie]

Go away troll.

[pooky biggins]

Yeah 'Jewdie'. If your a racist ur not welcome

[Sps]

that's "Trolldie" to you mister.

[Maximus Decimus]

I was wondering Sps, what does a username have to do with this discussion? If you are offended contact the moderators. If you think your argument is more credible because of this you are mistaken. Sps, for once do us a favour and post something intellectual.

[Rapier]

Haha, Jewdie has been trolling in every thread I've seen him, as for Jew-die being racist... (I'm trying to overlook that and give him the benefit of the doubt, it could have been unintentionally chosen.. a fantasy name as you will).

And resorting to further personal attacks especially when Jewdie clearly was trolling (which is all SPS said), no matter the other unintellectually comments he may have made in other posts (Haven't seen any totally asinine posts from him myself).

That's hypocritical too bringing in even more off topic points.

[Lone Canadian]

This thread is close to being derailed. So I will take it upon myself to recenter the thing.

Back on Topic: DoW is a fast paced game, and was made to be played fast. That's what all the reviewers loved about it. And I assume all of us here as well. If they did make a slower paced game with the same engine that might be cool, but probably wouldn't take place within the 40k universe.

But then again there have been other squad based slow/medium paced games made for Games Workshop. (Dark Omen being the foremost that comes to mind.)

Also it can depend on the game your playing, if your looking for a quick and bloody meat grinder then you can have those. But there are also those that like to have longer battles, and maybe in the upcoming Exp they can some how incorperate this as an option as it would lead to some more people getting into the game.

- - - Wow, random thoughts. Hmm sorry late night, I hope it makes sense. ( Pink Elephant!!!)

[Shinova]

DoW's pacing is delightfully fast.


The trained monkey syndrome is there, but if someone pulls off something totally unexpected and succeeds with it, he or she rocks and could sweep the opposition or take them off their feet permanently.

So I'd say the potential for good variety is still there.

[TBS]

I fear that people are in danger of missing the original poster's point - I think we can all agree that DoW is a great game and the pacing works fine: noone is suggesting that DoW should be changed to make it more slow paced. The question was would we like to see a slower game with similar visuals in the 40k universe. My answer is that I would be interested but cant say whether I would like it more or less than DoW unless you can come up with some concrete ideas for the game (eg what resource model? a slower paced game should probably utilise more than two resources...but we still cant have space marines mining ore etc).

[golfer1]

Wonder if a low tech mode could be put in as an option. There are other games that have 'meatgrinder' type of modes. You get tanks, but can't tech up much beyond that. There could be three option: Standard, Quickstart, and low tech. Just a thought.

[Thog]

First, I love this game as is (patch no patch whatever).

My ideal slowdown version of DOW would slow (and cheapen) reinforce rates for all units.

Making the production of squads much more important, and making games last into higher tech by reducing the viability of "rushes"

I expected something a little slower paced as well, something less (only a little less) micro intensive and more stratigic. it seems to me there are really only 2 really viable tier 1 stragities for each race with a few things that work only if your opponent leaves you alone(which good players rarely do).

[zips up flame retardant suit] QS seems more stratigic :flame: (though certainly less slow)


last week I OB'd my NAZI flag banner partner.....felt good. We were gonna win anyway (and did, but I made my point)

[North Wolf]

JD did miss the point I was making, I know all about being aggressive in this game. I play Chaos mostly and you just cant sit back and turtle with them. Its not that I find Dawn to be broken, its not, it does what its supposed to do better then any Classic style RTS out there.

I know that Relic had a diffrent concept in mind when they started, they wanted an RTS where you take and hold ground, slug it out and defend what yours and generally used a good defense as part of your main strat.

What they ended up with (becouse over time this is what turned out to be fun with the RTS model), was a fast paced, flexible rts with the emphasis on a ruthless brutal war of attrition style offense.

I would like to see a squad based game similar to the tabletop "feel", no tech or req, simply a battlefield with these nice models duking it out.

Close combat series did a good take on tactical warfare (horrid AI was the downfall of the series), other games like Combat Mission, have used a timer where both plan, then watch the action for a bit before getting to issue new orders (a take on turn based).

RTS games have their roots in turn based games, macro is just a legacy of having alot of options (will your tank fire smoke, high explosive or anti armor rounds?) etc.

I would love to see this engine put to use in a tactical war game of a diffrent sort with the emphasis on the battle alone and the pacing much much slower to give it room for more depth (or macro if you think in RTS terms). Gettysburg (Sid version), had good AI and a battle like approach, regiments rather then squads though, horrid grapics but still fun to this day. Something like that would appeal to the General in me over Dawn.

I dont want Dawn changed though, its actually a great but diffrent experience from the classic table top version. I just think there is potential to deviate from what it does (art and engine are huge chunks of dev time and expense). If they took what they have in Dawn and recycled it into a diffrent game I would go for it.

As far as the expansion, I´m looking forward to it.

[DRAGONHAWK]

Personally I find Dawn to be an awsome game, but I would also love a game that used that engine for more set piece battles (closer to table top). Where handling your army is king and nothing else (slower, more tactical with your army "bought" before the battle).

they actually did make a game that was more like the table top games. i think it was called Warhammer 40,000: Rites of War. you got your army ready before the game started and it was turn based. it wasnt nearly as good as Dawn of War. i think you could only play as eldar too. it did include tyranid though.

[Maximus Decimus]

You are never going to get a tabletop clone, why? Because it would be suicide for Games Workshop.

Rites of War was a horrible game.

[Kaldaris]

I also think Turn Based Games are dying(if not dead already).

[Rakh]

Maximus said it. Making a tabletop clone would seriously hurt the sales of the tabletop products. I know I'd more than welcome the option to play WH40k without having to invest 300-400$ into an army, which is exactly why it won't happen. What I'd like to see on the other hand is a Total Warish thing. Kinda like that old Star Wars turn based strategy game(can't for the life of me remember the name). But games of that type are a dying breed, i can count the number of recent succesful turn based strategy games on one hand, while RTS games quickly double or triple that number.

Another thing I'd love to see is a remake of the old Space Hulk games. Those games were sweet back in the day. One of the few GW licenses I've truely enjoyed beyond DoW.

[Rapier]

I also think Turn Based Games are dying(if not dead already).

I am aware of at least twoTurn based game in development, so they're not dead, (just rare )

Hybridised turn based games are still popular too. (total war series for example).

[hiteche5]

No, however, if that's all he did, then yes, DoW isn't a full monkey game (warcraft is closer) but it still, mmm, it lacks some tactical depth (Not compared to industry standards), compared to what I would like it to posses.

Well, I posted this somewhere else but I think it applies here as well. I think people have begun relating units and what options they chose as tactics and strategy. That is not strategy or tactics. You do not need 5 starting units to have tactical options. Tactics is what is done with the troops you have. I won't say DoW is perfect in this realm....far from it. But the point is, the flaw is not in unit choices, it is in the maps. The maps don't give you much choices at all. Better maps, more tactics to employ on those maps.

Look at most of the 1vs1 automatch maps. They are mostly straight shots to each others base with very little terrain changes, no high cliffs to allow artillery to bombard, no flanking due to lack of paths to a base, strategic points don't have a strategic importance....they are just points on the map, they do not provide any bonus nor give a sense of accomplishment or bring you closer to your goal, it is also impossible to surprise your enemy, not allowing for sneak attack or ambush tactics (Chaos has a possibility to do this but to many detector units are around).

Overall, changing the maps will change the game into what you are looking for. But there is a porblem with that. The general public likes a RTS game to last about 20 minutes. This tidbit was taken from a Blizzard demographic that was published about 2 years ago. In general, the public likes the fast, one unit, rush and destroy type of games we have today.

[Dymo]

"But the point is, the flaw is not in unit choices, it is in the maps. The maps don't give you much choices at all. Better maps, more tactics to employ on those maps."

Thanks hiteche5, saved me from typing it. There is a Mod out there that does what is asked for. Not sure if it works but maybe worth a try. Try the Mod forum for particulars.

Also if the Mod is the deal, try some player maps as well. I have played some that do create the larger battlefield feel but see limited Online use so that kinda hurts them.