Warhammer 40k: Dawn of War II Beta NOW PUBLIC

[Lonyo]

Originally posted by: Dorkenstein
How do you counter getting suppressed? I tried to take out shuriken cannons with a mob of orks and they all got suppressed and mowed down.

Jump troops/flank/Waaaargh!/vehicle

 

[chizow]

After a few days, I've found the game looks and runs really good, but multiplayer is pretty weak honestly. Some problems I found:

• 1) Tiny maps, some may like this, but it really takes away from tactics/strategy. 3v3 max is also pretty weak. I would've hoped for more players given the focus on Heroes with smaller squads and armies.
  
  2) Ranged units are way too powerful. So are mechanical/tier 3 units. There's no rock paper scissors really, its just rock (melee) vs. bigger rock (ranged) vs. mechanical (boulder).
  
  3) Tyranids are vastly underpowered. Again, mainly due to extremely weak ranged units. For example, 2 tier 1 Heavy Bolter squads from Space Marines will utterly suppress and annihilate anything from Tyranid through Tier 2.
  
  4) P2P netcode....feels like a major throwback to games hosted on like Mplayer or GameSpy where the game only runs as smooth as the weakest link. No lobby, poor match-making service and poor voice implementation, at least on Steam. Need a specific setting in the game that allows a person to set voice input/output.
  
  5) Unit abilities seem really suppressed. Some units have abilities, most do not. Some units have upgrades, others do not. There's really no consistency, but some of the upgrades are really powerful and significantly change a unit's functionality, which is pretty cool.
  
  6) Interface also fails in numerous ways. Left hand felt bored really, unlike WC3 where everything was bound to a unit-specific hot key or WiC where WASD is used to move and launch offensive/defensive specials.
  
  7) Everything seems to be really expensive. From units to individual upgrades to Hero War Gear. Good and bad I suppose as it makes resource management and unit preservation more important, just hurts the flow of the game a lot.
  
  8) Unit healing and reinforcements. Only way I found to do this consistently, without a specific healing unit was to run back to base. I know some units and structures can speed up regen and allow reinforcements, but again, seems really inconsistent and disjointed.

I'll probably still end up buying this for the campaign, but I expect the multiplayer will eventually just turn into a DOTA mod.

 

[Dorkenstein]

I am inclined to agree, after a few more games. Hopefully this really is a "beta" beta, but I have a sad feeling that since we are so close to launch that this is truly indicative of a final product, at least at launch time.

 

[PieIsAwesome]

I like the game. It ran crappy on the computer I was using (x1800xt, was waiting for 4850 to arrive) but lower settings got me mostly 30 fps. The game is certainly different, I think I prefer the change from the same old base-building RTS. My only gripe is that Live bullshit. Took me a while before I can play the game because I had to register a live account and whatnot. I hate it.

 

[Modelworks]

Again one more pc game with a console server browser . Get it straight developers. I don't want you to decide who I play.

Otherwise the game itself is ok. I won't buy it at release, but may when the price drops.

 

[poohbear]

its funny i see complaints saying its too simplistic and complaints saying certain features are too complicated. So, obviously this is all in the eye of the beholder.

My first time playing WC3 and SC online i kept getting ravaged, when i finally figured out how to do it i thoroughly started enjoying MP. I think u guys just need to give it time.

As for the guy who said Tyranids are underpowered, their units are dirt cheap, u gota take advantage of that & mass produce em. If they're getting suppressed flank the supresseor, very simple. u also MUST upgrade to tier 2 because it makes all Tyranid units more powerful. Its not very complicated, it just takes time to learn. Look at the top 20 leader board and u'll see plenty of Tyranid players.

 

[AbAbber2k]

Really enjoy it but its vastly different from DoW1 so I'm still learning. Was getting pissed at first because I didn't know what I was doing, but the more I play and the better I get, the more it's been growing on me.

 

[datalink7]

Originally posted by: poohbear
its funny i see complaints saying its too simplistic and complaints saying certain features are too complicated. So, obviously this is all in the eye of the beholder.

My first time playing WC3 and SC online i kept getting ravaged, when i finally figured out how to do it i thoroughly started enjoying MP. I think u guys just need to give it time.

As for the guy who said Tyranids are underpowered, their units are dirt cheap, u gota take advantage of that & mass produce em. If they're getting suppressed flank the supresseor, very simple. u also MUST upgrade to tier 2 because it makes all Tyranid units more powerful. Its not very complicated, it just takes time to learn. Look at the top 20 leader board and u'll see plenty of Tyranid players.

Exactly my point

It has nothing to do with me "getting ravaged." Once I got the hang of the game I have been winning more often than losing in 3 v 3. 1v1 I haven't lost in about 10 games.

Not saying it isn't a fun game. I'm going to buy it. But CoH has more tactical and strategic depth which makes it a more enjoyable game for me as those are features I really enjoy.

 

[poohbear]

datalink they're trying something different here, and for people that are out of highschool and dont have hours to dedicate to learn how to play a game, its a great oppurtunity to enjoy a game that's simple to learn and yet hard to master.

Chess is very simple to learn, but to say there's no depth to it would be as far from the truth as possible.

 

[datalink7]

Originally posted by: poohbear
datalink they're trying something different here, and for people that are out of highschool and dont have hours to dedicate to learn how to play a game, its a great oppurtunity to enjoy a game that's simple to learn and yet hard to master.

Chess is very simple to learn, but to say there's no depth to it would be as far from the truth as possible.

I never said that it wasn't a good game. In fact, I am enjoying quite a bit and will buy it when it comes out. You just said you didn't understand how I could say it was far less tactical, so I was explaining why it is.

 

[Fox5]

Originally posted by: datalink7

Originally posted by: Maximilian
Is this like company of heros but with futuristic stuff instead??

It has some elements of CoH but is far less tactical (which is why I like CoH better). It is faster paced and I'd say terrrain matters a bit less.

Really? I'd say more tactical (though less strategic) and that terrain matters more. Stuff not in cover dies so quickly in DoW2, and suppression/retreat doesn't give nearly the defense buff it did in CoH.

I do prefer CoH though.

 

[Dorkenstein]

I'm starting to harbor a grudge against the Eldar.

 

[poohbear]

yea some ppl say the eldar need to be nerfed, but look at the top 20 leaderboard and most players ARE'NT Eldar. As eldar, i usually win when im against Ork or Tyranids, but against marines i can get creamed if i dont control the game early on. Catching up against marines is out of the question usually. Mind u, i've played high level orks & tyranids and got creamed, i guess it just takes more skill to master those 2 races.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Originally posted by: Dorkenstein
I'm starting to harbor a grudge against the Eldar.

assault marines... FTW if you have them, FTL if you're up against them.

 

[Maximilian]

Well ive played the beta and i wasent too impressed, i liked the original better although im a die hard CoH fan rather than DoW so i never had that much experience with the franchise. I have no idea why theyve gone with games for windows live over the "Relic Online" thing they have in CoH, ive said many times that RO is the best online interface ive ever used, it really is great, simple, makes sense, its great, GFWL has nothing on it.

That really worries me about CoH2's multiplayer...

 

[Jules]

Originally posted by: PieIsAwesome
I like the game. It ran crappy on the computer I was using (x1800xt, was waiting for 4850 to arrive) but lower settings got me mostly 30 fps. The game is certainly different, I think I prefer the change from the same old base-building RTS. My only gripe is that Live bullshit. Took me a while before I can play the game because I had to register a live account and whatnot. I hate it.

Did you get your 4850 yet? How is it?

 

[Dorkenstein]

I didn't mind the registration, I am more put off by the matchmaking system. Can't be worse than Relic Online though.

 

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: Fox5

Originally posted by: datalink7

Originally posted by: Maximilian
Is this like company of heros but with futuristic stuff instead??

It has some elements of CoH but is far less tactical (which is why I like CoH better). It is faster paced and I'd say terrrain matters a bit less.

Really? I'd say more tactical (though less strategic) and that terrain matters more. Stuff not in cover dies so quickly in DoW2, and suppression/retreat doesn't give nearly the defense buff it did in CoH.

I do prefer CoH though.

Agreed, DOW2 is MUCH more tactical than CoH, being a faster-paced game and all. You really have to adapt quickly to situations if you're going to win.

And since there's really no base building at all and fewer units in DoW2, that makes CoH much more strategic.

 

[Dorkenstein]

I sucked at COH multi and I guess I do at this too. If I have a partner I can do pretty good but alone I just choke up.

 

[datalink7]

Originally posted by: Eeezee

Originally posted by: Fox5

Originally posted by: datalink7

Originally posted by: Maximilian
Is this like company of heros but with futuristic stuff instead??

It has some elements of CoH but is far less tactical (which is why I like CoH better). It is faster paced and I'd say terrrain matters a bit less.

Really? I'd say more tactical (though less strategic) and that terrain matters more. Stuff not in cover dies so quickly in DoW2, and suppression/retreat doesn't give nearly the defense buff it did in CoH.

I do prefer CoH though.

Agreed, DOW2 is MUCH more tactical than CoH, being a faster-paced game and all. You really have to adapt quickly to situations if you're going to win.

And since there's really no base building at all and fewer units in DoW2, that makes CoH much more strategic.

Quicker does not equal more tactical. Strategic level decisions are more akin to what you would see in games like Civilization and the Total War games (on the campaign map). I would argue almost all of the decisions made in both games are at the tactical level (maybe only the resource point capturing being strategic and perhaps base building). CoH has far far more tactical choices, which I already mentioned above in my earlier post.

 

[JoshGuru7]

There are certainly more things to potentially think about in CoH, but you have to think about them much more quickly in DoW2. Ultimately it balances out for me.

The deal-breaker for me so far with DOW2 has been the matchmaking system. I don't understand how development studios in 2009 can feel that it's a sound decision to release worse interfaces than we had ten years ago. I'll probably end up buying this game for the single player only and sticking to WiC for my multiplayer RTS fix.

 

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: datalink7

Originally posted by: Eeezee

Originally posted by: Fox5

Originally posted by: datalink7

Originally posted by: Maximilian
Is this like company of heros but with futuristic stuff instead??

It has some elements of CoH but is far less tactical (which is why I like CoH better). It is faster paced and I'd say terrrain matters a bit less.

Really? I'd say more tactical (though less strategic) and that terrain matters more. Stuff not in cover dies so quickly in DoW2, and suppression/retreat doesn't give nearly the defense buff it did in CoH.

I do prefer CoH though.

Agreed, DOW2 is MUCH more tactical than CoH, being a faster-paced game and all. You really have to adapt quickly to situations if you're going to win.

And since there's really no base building at all and fewer units in DoW2, that makes CoH much more strategic.

Quicker does not equal more tactical. Strategic level decisions are more akin to what you would see in games like Civilization and the Total War games (on the campaign map). I would argue almost all of the decisions made in both games are at the tactical level (maybe only the resource point capturing being strategic and perhaps base building). CoH has far far more tactical choices, which I already mentioned above in my earlier post.

Those are certainly strategic level decisions, but there are tactical decisions to be made on those maps as well (for instance, choosing which territory to attack in any given round in Dark Crusade is a tactical decision, whereas your overall strategy might be to capture a particular race's HQ)

Resource points carry greater significance in DoW II, since there are fewer of them on average and units cost a lot more.

And yes, quicker DOES equal more tactical. When you have less time to think about your actions, you end up making a lot more tactical decisions than strategic ones. Any immediate response to a stimulus is going to involve tactical decision making rather than strategy (whereas preferring one type of unit/wargear over others as a long-term response is strategic).

You don't have the strategic element of interconnected resources, which does affact tactics.

I'd argue the opposite, actually. If you lose a resource point in CoH, a type of which you have an abundance, you won't be in much of a hurry to take it back, especially if you're capturing resource points that matter more to you. Thus, you're not really making any tactical decisions, you're just sticking to a strategy. In DoWII, since there are fewer types of resources, you tend to hurt a lot more when you lose any one and your tactical decisions will reflect that. You might even be forced to change your tactics, which is itself a tactical move.

You don't have artillery and can't set up eschlonments of fire. You don't have vehicles with multiple areas that they can be damaged (hull, weapon, track, etc.).

True, but in CoH you don't have jump packs, or teleportation, or etc. etc. etc. The technology of DoWII tends to be more varied, providing a greater number of tactical opportunities and decisions.

You don't have offmap support and company commander options (instead you have heroes)

Company commander options are not tactical, they're strategic. Heroes are strategic as well. Offmap support is tactical, but this IS featured in DoW II (drop pods for instance)

You don't have base building. You can't set up sandbags or concertina wire. You don't set up mines

Again, these tend to be strategic decisions, not tactical. And you CAN set mines in DOW II

and have minblowers needing to come in to clear them out. You can't set up turrets to defend chokepoints except as a special hero option for space marienes.

Now those are more tactical. However, removing static defenses actually means DoW II requires more tactical decisions. You can't just plop down a few turrets and send your units elsewhere; you need to keep an occupying force in the area or risk losing resource points. Not only that, but it's good to have a few different patrols that are able to respond to larger forces. These are all tactical decisions that while they can be made in CoH tend not to be for the reasons you gave.

 

[datalink7]

Originally posted by: Eeezee
snip.

I think that we are operating on different definitions of strategy and tactics. Stategy is something, to my definition, that typically is at division level and above (though you could say base building gets close, that is probably at BN or BDE level really). Thus my statement that both games were mostly comprised entirely of tactical, not strategic, decisions.

 

[Gothgar]

this game is pretty kick ass

 

[PieIsAwesome]

Originally posted by: Jules

Originally posted by: PieIsAwesome
I like the game. It ran crappy on the computer I was using (x1800xt, was waiting for 4850 to arrive) but lower settings got me mostly 30 fps. The game is certainly different, I think I prefer the change from the same old base-building RTS. My only gripe is that Live bullshit. Took me a while before I can play the game because I had to register a live account and whatnot. I hate it.

Did you get your 4850 yet? How is it?

I got it, but the rig it's supposed to go in isn't ready yet because I am still waiting on a board to replace a dead one.