Warhammer?
- Thread starter sash1
- Start date
Yeah they are very good games. In SP it's kind of like a cross between an RTS and an action RPG like diablo 2. You command a small group of units throughout the game and they all level up and gain abilities and you can upgrade their gear.
MP is totally different. It's more like a pure RTS. It's different from most RTS's though in that there isn't much focus on base building. The focus is on the combat. The more territory you control the faster you gain resources, so you don't have to worry about someone sneaking into your mineral line and taking out all your workers like in Starcraft. It also has a skill based match making system so you're generally playing against someone of equal skill.
MP is totally different. It's more like a pure RTS. It's different from most RTS's though in that there isn't much focus on base building. The focus is on the combat. The more territory you control the faster you gain resources, so you don't have to worry about someone sneaking into your mineral line and taking out all your workers like in Starcraft. It also has a skill based match making system so you're generally playing against someone of equal skill.
Elcs
Diamond Member
- Apr 27, 2002
- 6,278
- 6
- 81
Being a fan of the Black Library, I love the Warhammer 40k DoW and DoW II series.
Very accomplished RTS games made by, in my opinion, the best and most consistant RTS makers of the past 10 years (and beyond actually, thinking back to Homeworld). As far as I was concerned, DoW II and the expansion Chaos Rising were the best RTS games of 2009 and 2010 respectively.
Singleplayer is a blend of squad based RTS and RPG-light with no base building capabilities. This might detract from the gameplay in some peoples eyes but it streamlines the whole process and allows you to focus on the more enjoyable parts of the game, ie. the action and the story. Story is presented in a way that non-40k'ers will enjoy it and understand it and experienced 40k'ers will appreciate the effort made to strike a compromise between balance and what the background material usually says.
Multiplayer, I confess is not my thing when it comes to RTS games. 5 well balanced factions fight it out in typical 'Annihilate' or 'Capture Points' victory matches. Resources are gained by taking and holding various points around the map. Each faction has a selection of 3 hero units to choose from and you pick one to be your Commander. They all have various strengths, weaknesses and 'global' abilities to use which can hinder or devastate your enemy. There is only one base per team and no base building, again letting you into the meat of the game straight away.
Multiplayer also has a rather fantastic game called The Last Stand. Three Heroes battle it out against wave upon wave of enemy forces, working in tandem to survive. The epitomy of a survival game in RTS form it has many hours of enjoyment with another RPG-lite system of progression for your Heroes, unlocking a new piece of equipment at every level. Personally I had a blast with it.
In the UK, DoW II and Chaos Rising are available in a £10 ($15) pack so it's reasonably cheap.
If you don't want to go down that route, you could always sign up to the DoW II official forums and be granted access to the Retribution Beta for free. This would give you a slight/general feel of the game, presumably in multiplayer only mode. As it's free I cannot help but recommend this option but as it is beta, it can change, it will change and it will have some bugs in it. They are switching the entire multiplayer server/matchmaking/nonsense from GFWL over to Steam so I'm expecting buggy/laggy multiplayer beta so bear that in mind.
Their Trueskill (TS) system of matchmaking seems reasonable from all that I have read. Once you get a few matches under your belt, you start getting matched with people nearer to your skill level with the random exceptions that can happen in any system like this.
Very accomplished RTS games made by, in my opinion, the best and most consistant RTS makers of the past 10 years (and beyond actually, thinking back to Homeworld). As far as I was concerned, DoW II and the expansion Chaos Rising were the best RTS games of 2009 and 2010 respectively.
Singleplayer is a blend of squad based RTS and RPG-light with no base building capabilities. This might detract from the gameplay in some peoples eyes but it streamlines the whole process and allows you to focus on the more enjoyable parts of the game, ie. the action and the story. Story is presented in a way that non-40k'ers will enjoy it and understand it and experienced 40k'ers will appreciate the effort made to strike a compromise between balance and what the background material usually says.
Multiplayer, I confess is not my thing when it comes to RTS games. 5 well balanced factions fight it out in typical 'Annihilate' or 'Capture Points' victory matches. Resources are gained by taking and holding various points around the map. Each faction has a selection of 3 hero units to choose from and you pick one to be your Commander. They all have various strengths, weaknesses and 'global' abilities to use which can hinder or devastate your enemy. There is only one base per team and no base building, again letting you into the meat of the game straight away.
Multiplayer also has a rather fantastic game called The Last Stand. Three Heroes battle it out against wave upon wave of enemy forces, working in tandem to survive. The epitomy of a survival game in RTS form it has many hours of enjoyment with another RPG-lite system of progression for your Heroes, unlocking a new piece of equipment at every level. Personally I had a blast with it.
In the UK, DoW II and Chaos Rising are available in a £10 ($15) pack so it's reasonably cheap.
If you don't want to go down that route, you could always sign up to the DoW II official forums and be granted access to the Retribution Beta for free. This would give you a slight/general feel of the game, presumably in multiplayer only mode. As it's free I cannot help but recommend this option but as it is beta, it can change, it will change and it will have some bugs in it. They are switching the entire multiplayer server/matchmaking/nonsense from GFWL over to Steam so I'm expecting buggy/laggy multiplayer beta so bear that in mind.
Their Trueskill (TS) system of matchmaking seems reasonable from all that I have read. Once you get a few matches under your belt, you start getting matched with people nearer to your skill level with the random exceptions that can happen in any system like this.
PieIsAwesome
Diamond Member
- Feb 11, 2007
- 4,054
- 1
- 0
Compared to a certain other RTS's:
I thought multiplayer was very fun. I enjoy it more than SC2. Now that I think about it, SC2 doesn't play well with more than 2 players, and DoW2 doesn't play that well with only 2 players. So if 6-player matches sound fun to you (3v3 or free for all), DoW2 is perfect. Retribution will have a beta Feb 1st, so you can try it out.
Competitive 1v1 or custom maps = Starcraft 2
Fun 4-6 player matches = DoW2
Some people believe that DoW2 really isn't an RTS and that its more like an RPG or tactical game. This might be true for the campaigns, but not the multiplayer. In multiplayer you capture territory, gather resources, build units, buy upgrades, and tech up like in other RTS's. The only RPG elements are that you have a hero (basically an extra-strong unit that grants you special abilities), that your units level up (but even units in Starcraft rank up), that you can upgrade your units with special equipment (like grenades), and that your units make heavy use of abilities (like throwing grenades). There just isn't any base-building.
But the abilities and hero are not overpowered like in Warcraft III. In Warcraft III your hero can take on an army once its leveled up enough and makes heavy use of cheap, magical abilities. There is a bigger focus in Warcraft III with using your hero like in an RPG (item pickups, monster killing, leveling up, skill upgrades). This isn't the case in DoW2. There are no item pickups, no creeps to level off off, no skill tree, no grinding to level up. Your hero is just a special unit to support your army, and he or she can't wipe out armies alone.
Gameplay is a bit different than other RTS's. The scale is different. You don't control individual infantry, but squads of them. And you are expected to preserve your squad (they rank up, you invest in them with upgrades, and if you lose squad members you can replace them). A dead squad is a significant loss. You don't spam tanks either, you get 1 or 2, and you take very good care of them. Tanks are expensive, and losing one is a big setback. You are not showered in resources, every bit needs to be used wisely. But it never feels like you are lacking units, there are still plenty fielded to make for some pretty hectic engagements.
I thought multiplayer was very fun. I enjoy it more than SC2. Now that I think about it, SC2 doesn't play well with more than 2 players, and DoW2 doesn't play that well with only 2 players. So if 6-player matches sound fun to you (3v3 or free for all), DoW2 is perfect. Retribution will have a beta Feb 1st, so you can try it out.
Competitive 1v1 or custom maps = Starcraft 2
Fun 4-6 player matches = DoW2
Some people believe that DoW2 really isn't an RTS and that its more like an RPG or tactical game. This might be true for the campaigns, but not the multiplayer. In multiplayer you capture territory, gather resources, build units, buy upgrades, and tech up like in other RTS's. The only RPG elements are that you have a hero (basically an extra-strong unit that grants you special abilities), that your units level up (but even units in Starcraft rank up), that you can upgrade your units with special equipment (like grenades), and that your units make heavy use of abilities (like throwing grenades). There just isn't any base-building.
But the abilities and hero are not overpowered like in Warcraft III. In Warcraft III your hero can take on an army once its leveled up enough and makes heavy use of cheap, magical abilities. There is a bigger focus in Warcraft III with using your hero like in an RPG (item pickups, monster killing, leveling up, skill upgrades). This isn't the case in DoW2. There are no item pickups, no creeps to level off off, no skill tree, no grinding to level up. Your hero is just a special unit to support your army, and he or she can't wipe out armies alone.
Gameplay is a bit different than other RTS's. The scale is different. You don't control individual infantry, but squads of them. And you are expected to preserve your squad (they rank up, you invest in them with upgrades, and if you lose squad members you can replace them). A dead squad is a significant loss. You don't spam tanks either, you get 1 or 2, and you take very good care of them. Tanks are expensive, and losing one is a big setback. You are not showered in resources, every bit needs to be used wisely. But it never feels like you are lacking units, there are still plenty fielded to make for some pretty hectic engagements.
Last edited:
GoodRevrnd
Diamond Member
- Dec 27, 2001
- 6,801
- 581
- 126
GFWL is buggy/laggy multiplayer. Steam will also be buggy/laggy, but significantly less so than GFWL. Supposedly the most important deal with the change to Steamworks is support for NAT negotiation so you won't have as many random drops, when people do drop it won't freak the game out as much, and you will be matched against the entire pool of people out there available to play instead of only the few that GFWL was able to connect (this is a big deal for ranked matchmaking system).
To OP, if you're only interested in multiplayer just sign up for the beta and buy it if you like it as the old ones will unfortunately be virtually worthless in that regard. If the single player interests you then definitely pick up the old ones also and give them a play through. I thoroughly enjoyed the campaigns, and frankly thought the Chaos Rising campaign was even better than the original.
Elcs
Diamond Member
- Apr 27, 2002
- 6,278
- 6
- 81
GFWL is 'okay'. Not had too much problem with it though I've only been a TLS player.
My point was that it will be a beta testing phase which I presume will focus heavily on the shift from GFWL to Steam. This process is in all likelihood going to present issues itself, hence the buggy/laggy comment.
Testing of new networks, new servers, new code etc.
WelshBloke
Lifer
- Jan 12, 2005
- 32,473
- 10,614
- 136
Zenoth
Diamond Member
- Jan 29, 2005
- 5,201
- 214
- 106
I really liked the campaigns in DoW II and Chaos Rising, and the "The Last Stand" mode is really fun, multi-player is alright but, for me, in multi-player an RTS game needs base building, since it plays a big part of the tactics needed to get through a base when that's the case (not referring to playing against A.I here, but referring to playing against other players who know at least the basics and can give some decent challenge), while in DoW II's multi-player (excluding the TLS mode) all you do basically is to "push" and advance towards the enemy's "base", if it can be called a base to start with, it's a single main building, "guarded" (hardly) by two automated turrets, from that building everything happens (units training, upgrades being researched, etc.) and comes out, so if you were successful to make it to that point it pretty much means that you're the winner and all you have to do from there is to focus fire on that building until it blows up and that's about it.
When base building is present in multi-player you actually have to keep thinking about tactics once you reach an enemy's base, since more than one building is (usually) responsible for specific units' training/construction, it's been there for decades in most RTS'es, if not all of them except DoW II that I know of. The thing is that if you "invade" an enemy's base in which multiple structures exist you should (or simply have to, depending on the game and the players concerned) at least be careful not to scatter too much of your main force around to avoid being split/isolated by reinforcing units/vehicles coming out of various buildings in that base, some of which are usually out-of-range/view, of course such situations don't always happen, but it can, that's the point, the possibility that even though you were successful in making it to the enemy's base doesn't necessarily mean that you'll be able to destroy it, you may well get mowed down by fixed defenses and/or get surprised/flanked/out-ranged by out-of-view/range/reinforcing ground/air units (and artillery) coming from various buildings in the base (especially when Fog of War is present).
I just find that the lack of base building in DoW II's multi-player is offering nothing "refreshing", nor suddenly makes the game anywhere near original or "more interesting" because of it. I thought that and nothing less before the game was even released, then I bought it, and I just confirmed my own views by trying it a few times, I just can't stand it. But I DO really like that very concept for the CAMPAIGN however, that way I can focus on the story-telling and appreciate the scripted events a bit more without having to check back in my base and ensure that my queued units in 'x'/'y'/'z' buildings are still on their way. I do understand the reason behind their decision to remove base building in general (well, it's pretty simple, they wanted to try something new and refreshing by streaming things down to specific tasks and on-the-field actions early in games), I just strongly disagree with such a move as long as multi-player is concerned, but for the campaign (to repeat myself) it's perfectly fine, I just feel that multi-player without base building in a game that wants to be considered an RTS is just self-contradictory, it just doesn't work.
Multi-player in DoW 1 however... that's a completely different story, I loved it. Additionally, what I really like about DoW 1 is the modding community, DoW 2's mods, even the biggest ones I can think of only pale in comparison to what could be done for DoW 1, entire new races could be added (and were, such as Tyranids) for it, not to mention A.I modifications for skirmishes, and much more (still happening to this day, there's a nice dedicated bunch to mod that jewel). And, well, DoW 1 has Necrons and Dark Eldar, two races I love in the DoW universe, that's also a big plus for me (but I absolutely adore the Craftworld Eldar in DoW II, I must give credits where due, the Eldar in DoW 1 are pitiful in comparison).
When base building is present in multi-player you actually have to keep thinking about tactics once you reach an enemy's base, since more than one building is (usually) responsible for specific units' training/construction, it's been there for decades in most RTS'es, if not all of them except DoW II that I know of. The thing is that if you "invade" an enemy's base in which multiple structures exist you should (or simply have to, depending on the game and the players concerned) at least be careful not to scatter too much of your main force around to avoid being split/isolated by reinforcing units/vehicles coming out of various buildings in that base, some of which are usually out-of-range/view, of course such situations don't always happen, but it can, that's the point, the possibility that even though you were successful in making it to the enemy's base doesn't necessarily mean that you'll be able to destroy it, you may well get mowed down by fixed defenses and/or get surprised/flanked/out-ranged by out-of-view/range/reinforcing ground/air units (and artillery) coming from various buildings in the base (especially when Fog of War is present).
I just find that the lack of base building in DoW II's multi-player is offering nothing "refreshing", nor suddenly makes the game anywhere near original or "more interesting" because of it. I thought that and nothing less before the game was even released, then I bought it, and I just confirmed my own views by trying it a few times, I just can't stand it. But I DO really like that very concept for the CAMPAIGN however, that way I can focus on the story-telling and appreciate the scripted events a bit more without having to check back in my base and ensure that my queued units in 'x'/'y'/'z' buildings are still on their way. I do understand the reason behind their decision to remove base building in general (well, it's pretty simple, they wanted to try something new and refreshing by streaming things down to specific tasks and on-the-field actions early in games), I just strongly disagree with such a move as long as multi-player is concerned, but for the campaign (to repeat myself) it's perfectly fine, I just feel that multi-player without base building in a game that wants to be considered an RTS is just self-contradictory, it just doesn't work.
Multi-player in DoW 1 however... that's a completely different story, I loved it. Additionally, what I really like about DoW 1 is the modding community, DoW 2's mods, even the biggest ones I can think of only pale in comparison to what could be done for DoW 1, entire new races could be added (and were, such as Tyranids) for it, not to mention A.I modifications for skirmishes, and much more (still happening to this day, there's a nice dedicated bunch to mod that jewel). And, well, DoW 1 has Necrons and Dark Eldar, two races I love in the DoW universe, that's also a big plus for me (but I absolutely adore the Craftworld Eldar in DoW II, I must give credits where due, the Eldar in DoW 1 are pitiful in comparison).
Last edited:
GoodRevrnd
Diamond Member
- Dec 27, 2001
- 6,801
- 581
- 126
What's refreshing is it refocuses the strategy from base economy to unit composition and tactics. The resources have been moved to the field so that fighting, map control and resource gathering become one in the same. I think the traditional Starcraft model is flawed with how common and devastating a simple harvester line rush with things like mutas/lings/reapers is. There's also the aspect of teching down one path and being easily and completely countered. Granted, good observation of enemy operations will help prevent this, but it is still incredibly common.
As far as other games, Ground Control 1/2 both lacked base building and I felt it worked very well there. DoW1 & CoH both had base building but it was honestly rather insignificant. The games would have been almost the same if you removed the structures and just added them to a tech tree. Sure games can be swung or won with APC mine drops on factory exits or 105mm base rapes, but I wouldn't really consider this the norm. Comparable situations are far more common in base building games.
Rhezuss
Diamond Member
- Jan 31, 2006
- 4,118
- 34
- 91
The first DoW series was awesome. Played the original + Winter Assault and loved it.
I like what they did with DoW2. Small squad where your commander can level up and you get loot in missions that you can equip before going on a killing weekend. Simply love it.
Story is well written to and stay loyal to Warhammer 40k settings.
Go for it!
I like what they did with DoW2. Small squad where your commander can level up and you get loot in missions that you can equip before going on a killing weekend. Simply love it.
Story is well written to and stay loyal to Warhammer 40k settings.
Go for it!
I guess I'm in the minority but I thought DOW2 was a very overrated game. My biggest gripe was that the campaign had VERY LITTLE variety, all the campaign missions are pretty much the same, just varied terrain.
The cool thing was that you're able to play the campaign online cooperatively with a buddy, but even then it's not that great. Which leads me to my second biggest complain, GFWL is a horrible piece of junk. My friend and I would get randomly disconnected from each other, all the time. Skirmishes with other players are just fucking too laggy to even bother dealing with.
The plus side is that the game's graphics are pretty damn good for an RTS (overtaken by SC2 now), and the sound and soundtrack are pretty amazing as well.
The cool thing was that you're able to play the campaign online cooperatively with a buddy, but even then it's not that great. Which leads me to my second biggest complain, GFWL is a horrible piece of junk. My friend and I would get randomly disconnected from each other, all the time. Skirmishes with other players are just fucking too laggy to even bother dealing with.
The plus side is that the game's graphics are pretty damn good for an RTS (overtaken by SC2 now), and the sound and soundtrack are pretty amazing as well.
Unit composition and tactics is also very important in SC2....
The additional Basebuilding simply allows for more/different ways to play.
If you get hard-countered by the enemy Units or they destroy your mineral line its your fault...
So you need to master basebuilding, scouting, harassing, unit composition and tactics in order to be an all-around good player.
This allows competitive players to use more skills in order to win a game and differentiate themself from other players... -> Playing perfect is impossible... there is always something to spend additional APM in order to gain a slight advantage over your opponent...
This might be overwhelming and demotivating for new/slower players and i can understand the desire to restrict the required multitasking or possible/usefull APM in an RTS.
But i wouldnt call the SC2 model flawed... it simply caters more towards the competitive esport scence.
JoshGuru7
Golden Member
- Aug 18, 2001
- 1,020
- 1
- 0
GFWL is definitely a huge drawback, but luckily the expansion is correcting it by moving everything to steam. Overall I think the game is quite good. It isn't a base builder (at all), if that's your cup of tea you will prefer the original Dawn of War. The trick of Dawn of War II is how well you use your units rather than how much stuff you build.
Elcs
Diamond Member
- Apr 27, 2002
- 6,278
- 6
- 81
It seems like you are in the majority on this board. Dawn of War II threads seem to sink like a lead balloon even when the content is extremely juicy.
I think even the most hardcore Dawn of War II fan would agree that the repetitiveness of DoW II vanilla was the SP's biggest drawback and that GFWL was the biggest MP drawback (though I do not think it is as bad as most people make out. Maybe I'm lucky?)
I am unsure how you can give SC2's graphics such praise though. Dawn of War II on High puts SC2 to shame. I only mention High because Ultra is only used on the closest zoom (or two?) which is not really a playable zoom setting.
HomerX - This should not turn into a DoW II Vs. SC2 thread. I think great arguements can be made for both but I'm quite biased. (Warhammer 40k fan and found SC to be overrated)
GoodRevrnd
Diamond Member
- Dec 27, 2001
- 6,801
- 581
- 126
While I don't disagree with you concerning what SC2 requires to be successful, I still don't think it's a very good model. Typically one good teching mistake or lost fight and you're done. DoW2 allows for a certain degree of bounce back, owed largely in part to the retreat mechanic, but the other factors I mentioned as well, that I think makes for much more interesting matches.
GoodRevrnd
Diamond Member
- Dec 27, 2001
- 6,801
- 581
- 126
The biggest problem in MP is lack of unit responsiveness. This may be partly due to GFWL, nobody is quite sure. Hopefully they have specifically addressed this in Retribution in addition to any improvements derived just from the switch to Steam. It's a huge put off to new players, and a cosmically massive turn off to SC2 players (I don't blame them). =p
PieIsAwesome
Diamond Member
- Feb 11, 2007
- 4,054
- 1
- 0
I didn't really have big problems with that either. The occasional lag, person using settings too hight, or drop-hacker. I could still play the game online reliably. The only significant problem was the command delay, which varied from "alright" to "very bad." Made tossing grenades difficult. But GFWL was still horrible.
Daverino
Platinum Member
- Mar 15, 2007
- 2,004
- 1
- 0
I love both DoW and DoW II, I play the single player missions repeatedly for fun. The first is a traditional RTS along the lines of CoH (CoH took much of DoW's game play). The second, as described, is more an RPG where you level up and acquire loot but do not build bases.
Last stand multiplayer is fun, for a while. However I've never enjoyed base building RTS games in the first place, so I'm a bad reviewer for the regular MP modes. It always moves too fast for me and I get regularly trounced. The 'skill based matchmaking' doesn't work when you just start playing.
Last stand multiplayer is fun, for a while. However I've never enjoyed base building RTS games in the first place, so I'm a bad reviewer for the regular MP modes. It always moves too fast for me and I get regularly trounced. The 'skill based matchmaking' doesn't work when you just start playing.
GoodRevrnd
Diamond Member
- Dec 27, 2001
- 6,801
- 581
- 126
Haha I forgot about that. GFWL secretly starts you at 25 Trueskill for some awful awful reason. There's no reason noobs should be playing against someone that good.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 20K
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter