calling a turd a rose doesnt make it smell any better. I <--- I say its not an RTS. i dont know if you will agree that im a 'legitamate source' or not but that doesnt much matter to me one way or another. see i still have this ability that most humans the world over used to have, its called being able to think for yourself. its an amazing thing really and can lead to all kinds of previously unknown ideas. try it sometime you may like it.Dealin Burgers said:
Dawn of War II: Golly gee willikers!
- Thread starter Stormcloud23
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Yay, Ground Control made Warhammer 40K... I just hope the campaign doesn't become too repetitive like DC and SS.
I would call DOW 2 a real time tactics game rather than a real time strategy.... not that thats a bad thing
edit: I didn't read the thread before saying this, I'm not a copycat
edit 2: what I mean by tactics is that it is the localised warfare - taking cover, flanking, suppressing fire etc. Whereas I would define strategy as being things like turtling, rushing deny one particular resource etc.
edit: I didn't read the thread before saying this, I'm not a copycat
edit 2: what I mean by tactics is that it is the localised warfare - taking cover, flanking, suppressing fire etc. Whereas I would define strategy as being things like turtling, rushing deny one particular resource etc.
Well, time to toss in my 2c...
The game is good.
Regardless of how you classify it, I think it's good. Personally, I'm game with calling it RTT (Real Time Tactics), since that's essentially the focus of the game. It's less about macro, bases, resources, etc. and more about controling your squads, outmaneuvering your enemy, etc. However, the term "RTS" has been solidified to signify a genre. DoW2 is close enough to that to be included in that category, so I don't see any point in creating new terminology just to satisfy someone's dislike of certain game mechanics.
As for base building being madatory for an RTS, all I can say is Homeword, Myth, Ground Control, World in Conflict...
Is it a different game from DoW1? Yes it is. Heck, it's different from CoH. And the sooner people get over that the sooner they can look at the game for its own merits instead of measuring it up to their wet dream of what they imagined DoW2 to be.
Seriously, give the game an honest chance. Play a few games, get used to the mechanics and the controls. Try to have fun. As for the game being too simplistic, play a match against a few higher ranked opponents (R20+) first. Don't worry, LIVE will match you up to them soon enough
As for LIVE, I'm not a big fan, though it seems to get the job done for the most part. The interface is a bit simplistic and lacking in options, but I never lag on it and it's always others who need lag grace.
The game is good.
Regardless of how you classify it, I think it's good. Personally, I'm game with calling it RTT (Real Time Tactics), since that's essentially the focus of the game. It's less about macro, bases, resources, etc. and more about controling your squads, outmaneuvering your enemy, etc. However, the term "RTS" has been solidified to signify a genre. DoW2 is close enough to that to be included in that category, so I don't see any point in creating new terminology just to satisfy someone's dislike of certain game mechanics.
As for base building being madatory for an RTS, all I can say is Homeword, Myth, Ground Control, World in Conflict...
Is it a different game from DoW1? Yes it is. Heck, it's different from CoH. And the sooner people get over that the sooner they can look at the game for its own merits instead of measuring it up to their wet dream of what they imagined DoW2 to be.
Seriously, give the game an honest chance. Play a few games, get used to the mechanics and the controls. Try to have fun. As for the game being too simplistic, play a match against a few higher ranked opponents (R20+) first. Don't worry, LIVE will match you up to them soon enough
As for LIVE, I'm not a big fan, though it seems to get the job done for the most part. The interface is a bit simplistic and lacking in options, but I never lag on it and it's always others who need lag grace.
RTS doesn't necessarily entail the building of bases or conducting research - in fact such tropes often do nothing but distract from the actual battles. In many RTS games, the ability to properly manage the base building functions and general housekeeping is often the single greatest key to victory and often the player involvement in battles boils down to little more than selecting proper troop concentrations. That isn't a bad thing - the formula has proved to be incredibly fun time and again.
If you look at what Relic has done in the past few years, you'll note that they have clearly begun moving away from the house keeping mechanisms often present (but not always) in RTS games. Dawn of War removed the notion of resource gathering in general (replaced with strategic points), and had the player spending relatively small amounts of time managing base activities. Company of Heroes took this a step further by reducing base building to only a handful of buildings, meaning you rarely had to actually visit your base for much of anything. The result of the games was a generalized shift in focus from management of building to management of battles themselves. Combining that with a relatively small number of individual units under your command means that players can actually micromanage individual units in a battle.
Personally, I prefer games that focus more on the strategy than the logistics effort. In fact, my favorite RTS of all time was Ground Control where there was absolutely no logistics effort - the men you bring to a battle is all you get. That said, I also loved Starcraft, Dawn of War, and C&C (except generals, those filthy angry mobs irritate me to no end).
*edit*
With regards to the argument between tactics and strategy: the portion of a game that involves the actual combat is indeed tactical. Tactics, from a military standpoint, generally refers to any maneuver being done by individual combat elements. Using a leapfrog technique where one fire team in a squad covers another as they advance is an example of a tactical move. Having a company shift resources to another front is a tactical decision. As a general rule, any decision being made at the battalion level or below (for the US that's often 2,000+ men, or 30+ tanks etc). Strategy usually refers to the overarching scheme to achieve a grand objective. Taking a hill is rarely a strategic move - for that position no matter how perfect is unlikely to win the war. But it might just help win a battle.
To put that in game terms, when playing starcraft managing your units in a battle involves tactical skills. When you build a forward base, you have made a strategic decision (you have to expend resources to defend the installation, in return you hope to gain a monetary advantage over your foe). Choosing what forces to give to the installation for defense is a strategic move. If the place falls under attack, managing the battle is tactical. At some point, you may have to decide to either send more forces to the forward base(strategic maneuver), perhaps to a second location to draw the pressure off the base (tactical maneuver), or abandon the base (strategic decision, tactical maneuver).
Some games split strategic and tactical thinking fairly cleanly. The Total War series literally has different interfaces for it. During the strategic phase, you move armies about on a map, requisition more troops, order construction projects and the like. During the tactical phase, you control your army (at the company level) and attempt to crush one or more opposing armies (or perhaps, just hold your position until help arrives). Yet, even in this game the line is blurred between the two. If a battle is going poorly and it's obvious you've been outmaneuvered, the decision to stand and fight or retreat is often strategic.
In short: tactics are what you use to win a battle, strategy is what you use to win a war. It's the same basic thing only you are talking about different scales of time, unit size and whatnot.
If you look at what Relic has done in the past few years, you'll note that they have clearly begun moving away from the house keeping mechanisms often present (but not always) in RTS games. Dawn of War removed the notion of resource gathering in general (replaced with strategic points), and had the player spending relatively small amounts of time managing base activities. Company of Heroes took this a step further by reducing base building to only a handful of buildings, meaning you rarely had to actually visit your base for much of anything. The result of the games was a generalized shift in focus from management of building to management of battles themselves. Combining that with a relatively small number of individual units under your command means that players can actually micromanage individual units in a battle.
Personally, I prefer games that focus more on the strategy than the logistics effort. In fact, my favorite RTS of all time was Ground Control where there was absolutely no logistics effort - the men you bring to a battle is all you get. That said, I also loved Starcraft, Dawn of War, and C&C (except generals, those filthy angry mobs irritate me to no end).
*edit*
With regards to the argument between tactics and strategy: the portion of a game that involves the actual combat is indeed tactical. Tactics, from a military standpoint, generally refers to any maneuver being done by individual combat elements. Using a leapfrog technique where one fire team in a squad covers another as they advance is an example of a tactical move. Having a company shift resources to another front is a tactical decision. As a general rule, any decision being made at the battalion level or below (for the US that's often 2,000+ men, or 30+ tanks etc). Strategy usually refers to the overarching scheme to achieve a grand objective. Taking a hill is rarely a strategic move - for that position no matter how perfect is unlikely to win the war. But it might just help win a battle.
To put that in game terms, when playing starcraft managing your units in a battle involves tactical skills. When you build a forward base, you have made a strategic decision (you have to expend resources to defend the installation, in return you hope to gain a monetary advantage over your foe). Choosing what forces to give to the installation for defense is a strategic move. If the place falls under attack, managing the battle is tactical. At some point, you may have to decide to either send more forces to the forward base(strategic maneuver), perhaps to a second location to draw the pressure off the base (tactical maneuver), or abandon the base (strategic decision, tactical maneuver).
Some games split strategic and tactical thinking fairly cleanly. The Total War series literally has different interfaces for it. During the strategic phase, you move armies about on a map, requisition more troops, order construction projects and the like. During the tactical phase, you control your army (at the company level) and attempt to crush one or more opposing armies (or perhaps, just hold your position until help arrives). Yet, even in this game the line is blurred between the two. If a battle is going poorly and it's obvious you've been outmaneuvered, the decision to stand and fight or retreat is often strategic.
In short: tactics are what you use to win a battle, strategy is what you use to win a war. It's the same basic thing only you are talking about different scales of time, unit size and whatnot.
I figured out why I'm upset they removed base building.
In the first DoW you were not competing for small locations.
We weren't battling on random planet Z. These were insanely critical points that could not under any circumstances be lost. They had either intense morale value or they literally were critical to the survival of the overall campaign.
The bases were constructed to provide a secure landing zone for reinforcements. Just like the Emporer isn't sitting in the middle of a cornfield you wouldn't have one of the most critical junctions in the universe protected by a group of dudes outside a big shack. You'd have a heavily fortified location that provides support against the waves of enemies who want this planet.
There IS basebuilding in the universe of Warhammer 40k, if there isn't where the hell do all the tanks and such come from? Other than maybe orks (since they kinda piece together trash to my understanding) what race would honestly get all of its vehicles from a central location and ship them out via fedex?
Now if you aren't looking at the plausibility of base building in relation to the TT game I agree. However I LOVE DoW and likewise I LOVE TT DoW. I feel neither the rush and intense visual stimulation of the first, nor the strategic chess game of the second.
That I think is what causes me to "QQ" as some idiots might say (I don't mind different views in almost all cases but if you earnestly say QQ to someone you are an idiot). What race would logically place nothing but a single drop zone in a critical location in the universe?
Unless we are assuming that the first game was all the important battles and the second game is just gloryfying the many thousands of skirmishes across the universe.
I guess if that's the case I agree.
I don't feel that it is inherently a 'bad' game. I just think it was a shame that this is the earnest followup to DoWI. I was expecting something with epic scale (maybe not Supreme Commander Epic). It feels like we've taken the creativity of Company of Heroes and mixed it with the pacing of the original Command and Conquer.
Which was super cool and really fast paced, about 13 years ago. (It came out in 95 didn't it? haha I don't remember exactly).
So yeah. That's my feeling. I always looked at the first game as being the embodiment of how the largest most crucial wars played out in the actual universe, not as a real time version of the tabletop. I thought the second game was going to take that feeling of incomprehensible horror and extreme casualties to a whole new level. I am having trouble seeing the second game having that same energetic feeling on the highest speed setting as the first did.
Again that's entirely my opinion. Hope you enjoyed the somewhat eclectic read.
PS. It's a shame too because Relic seemed to streamline the speed of basebuilding to fit the speed of combat. Which I hadn't seen done before. It's like watching an exceptionally talented person die (IE. Steve Irwin(((() because you know nobody will ever earnestly pick up where they left off.
In the first DoW you were not competing for small locations.
We weren't battling on random planet Z. These were insanely critical points that could not under any circumstances be lost. They had either intense morale value or they literally were critical to the survival of the overall campaign.
The bases were constructed to provide a secure landing zone for reinforcements. Just like the Emporer isn't sitting in the middle of a cornfield you wouldn't have one of the most critical junctions in the universe protected by a group of dudes outside a big shack. You'd have a heavily fortified location that provides support against the waves of enemies who want this planet.
There IS basebuilding in the universe of Warhammer 40k, if there isn't where the hell do all the tanks and such come from? Other than maybe orks (since they kinda piece together trash to my understanding) what race would honestly get all of its vehicles from a central location and ship them out via fedex?
Now if you aren't looking at the plausibility of base building in relation to the TT game I agree. However I LOVE DoW and likewise I LOVE TT DoW. I feel neither the rush and intense visual stimulation of the first, nor the strategic chess game of the second.
That I think is what causes me to "QQ" as some idiots might say (I don't mind different views in almost all cases but if you earnestly say QQ to someone you are an idiot). What race would logically place nothing but a single drop zone in a critical location in the universe?
Unless we are assuming that the first game was all the important battles and the second game is just gloryfying the many thousands of skirmishes across the universe.
I guess if that's the case I agree.
I don't feel that it is inherently a 'bad' game. I just think it was a shame that this is the earnest followup to DoWI. I was expecting something with epic scale (maybe not Supreme Commander Epic). It feels like we've taken the creativity of Company of Heroes and mixed it with the pacing of the original Command and Conquer.
Which was super cool and really fast paced, about 13 years ago. (It came out in 95 didn't it? haha I don't remember exactly).
So yeah. That's my feeling. I always looked at the first game as being the embodiment of how the largest most crucial wars played out in the actual universe, not as a real time version of the tabletop. I thought the second game was going to take that feeling of incomprehensible horror and extreme casualties to a whole new level. I am having trouble seeing the second game having that same energetic feeling on the highest speed setting as the first did.
Again that's entirely my opinion. Hope you enjoyed the somewhat eclectic read.
PS. It's a shame too because Relic seemed to streamline the speed of basebuilding to fit the speed of combat. Which I hadn't seen done before. It's like watching an exceptionally talented person die (IE. Steve Irwin
(((() because you know nobody will ever earnestly pick up where they left off.
Note: You don't know what they are dropping most of the time. I doubt anyone here thinks that it takes 3 aircraft to deliver one vehicle. Yet it takes 3-4 for a single baneblade to leave the building. The in most cases may be dropping no more than the resources to build the unit.Wouldukindly said:
However my Point still stands that the drop points are secured. They aren't just being dropped willy nilly in a lightly protected area with a single building and the obligatory turrent to stop rushers
.I just feel that considering the dramatic important of the locations in the first game it's perfectly reasonable to expect heavy foritifactions, likewise I feel it is irrational to say that it was unheard of in the Warhammer universe.
But that's basically as far as I'll go with that because most people in these warhammer threads are more interested in insulting people who don't agree with them than discussing (you not included of course).
I can't recall a single change to the Tabletop game that was in any way as extremely dramatic as these changes.Wouldukindly said:
Imagine if they changed the tabletop game from units and dice rolls to heroclix?
Would you be cool with it merely being called "Codex Volume 5" or would you expect it to be "Codex: Heroclix edition" or something similar.
The TT changes are like the balance fixes in patches, not changing the entire game. (I feel or at least as I remember)
Unfortunately I think all they'd get out of me is the following.Wouldukindly said:
To Relic: "*Incoherent words mixed with crying*"
To Games Workshop: "Why are all your miniatures costlier than a Coke Habit!"
Neither of which I feel is constructive
.
It is enjoyable, but coming from someone who prefers real depth in stratergy rather then on the fly tactics its not what i was originally expecting.
Im fully aware that its trying to focus more on the combat and capture the feel of the tabletop game, it just dosnt appeal to my tastes in RTS's
Im fully aware that its trying to focus more on the combat and capture the feel of the tabletop game, it just dosnt appeal to my tastes in RTS's
funny thing to note, but when i played DOW i thought of the 'bases' as more of a beach head than anything else. just a place for the forces you had in orbit to land and move out from there. if you apply some real world concepts to the game it makes much more sence. for instiance you can have a unit of Marines cross a beach from landing ships but their FIRST goal will be to secure a port so that the 'heavy' stuff can come ashore. same thing in DoW basicaly. the marines land in pods, secure their beach head/port and the heavy stuff is landed afterwords.
i think thats more or less what i dont care for in this new idea, you loose the feel of being a part of a larger war. every time i seen a drop ship in DoW i was thinking of the forces in orbit, and the larger 'galactic' picture beyond that. this new tactical combat crap just doesnt present the same over all feel. i liked the truly epic feel of DoW like i was making decisions that could have an impact on the whole galaxy. demoting me from general in charge of an entire planets campaign to Lieutenant in charge of a squad is a demotion im not interested in taking i guess.
i can see that some people might like that. im just not one of em.
i think thats more or less what i dont care for in this new idea, you loose the feel of being a part of a larger war. every time i seen a drop ship in DoW i was thinking of the forces in orbit, and the larger 'galactic' picture beyond that. this new tactical combat crap just doesnt present the same over all feel. i liked the truly epic feel of DoW like i was making decisions that could have an impact on the whole galaxy. demoting me from general in charge of an entire planets campaign to Lieutenant in charge of a squad is a demotion im not interested in taking i guess.
i can see that some people might like that. im just not one of em.
Technically, when things are dropped in (I.E. Deepstruck) in the tabletop game, it is somewhat willy nilly. I mean, you can always choose where to drop a unit, but there's always a chance the unit will die (Dropped on top of an enemy unit, Materialize into a mountain side, etc.) in the processtheultimateend said:Note: You don't know what they are dropping most of the time. I doubt anyone here thinks that it takes 3 aircraft to deliver one vehicle. Yet it takes 3-4 for a single baneblade to leave the building. The in most cases may be dropping no more than the resources to build the unit.Wouldukindly said:
However my Point still stands that the drop points are secured. They aren't just being dropped willy nilly in a lightly protected area with a single building and the obligatory turrent to stop rushers
I just feel that considering the dramatic important of the locations in the first game it's perfectly reasonable to expect heavy foritifactions, likewise I feel it is irrational to say that it was unheard of in the Warhammer universe.
But that's basically as far as I'll go with that because most people in these warhammer threads are more interested in insulting people who don't agree with them than discussing (you not included of course).
Fighting the power? Sticking it to the Microsoft?PersianLlama said:
What stupidity or fruitless passion has led to you not doing something you want to because it requires a free and simple to set up service?
Actually... sounds as if they went back to the original game! War hammer was originally a Turn based strategy based around table top gaming. Your sides had limited number of troops, based a single number with each unit costing different amounts to 'purchase.' Then you marched and fought with these miniatures across a pre constructed battle field, taking turns seeing there is two or more human players controlling what could get to be several squads of men. There was nothing more then 'obliterate the enemy,' no points that had to be secured or buildings that had to be constructed. It was 'here are some men, now keep them alive or you will lose.'Stormcloud23 said:
Being a complex and more pretty version of chess. A very expensive version of Chess too, which is why I never got into it.
On the RTS note: The problem I have with base building is how UNREALISTIC this fact is. That these games have you building a base, usually from one single engineer, right next to an enemy who is like wise building a base or might have started with one already is just down right stupid. If you couple in some sort of future weapons, or even modern artillery, then no engineer is going to get close enough to start putting up the frame work of a bunker, let alone a full field HQ.
Or, more stupid, a building that will train your soldiers up from scratch or build a tank for you. You don't do that on the FRONT LINE of a battlefield. Those sort of buildings are far back line, if they are to be found anywhere on the battle field at all. If we had maps that where, say thousands of km in size, then maybe... maybe... base building wouldn't be too bad to implement.
A RTS where you start with a group, have to plan out a strategy and implement it with the force you where give at the start. *gasp.* How is this revolutionary?
PS Base building elements exist in my 'ultimate game idea' but it works in this way: You secure a place to build a base using a mercenary force. You then build your base and after you have a base large enough you start producing NPC units.
The twist? You don't use these units to strike at some enemy base within the map you have secured. No you use them to strike at enemies on OTHER maps. This gives the illusion your main base is back line while the battles are taking place many many KM away from the safety of these manufacturing buildings.
You have to think ahead more too, cause the battle isn't taking place on one map. Moving all your forces to one map could lead to counter attacks against your main base. Should you be that bad a tactician to leave one of your many flanks exposed.
Now why couldn't I be rich to pay someone to program this MASSIVE idea....
Or, more stupid, a building that will train your soldiers up from scratch or build a tank for you. You don't do that on the FRONT LINE of a battlefield. Those sort of buildings are far back line, if they are to be found anywhere on the battle field at all. If we had maps that where, say thousands of km in size, then maybe... maybe... base building wouldn't be too bad to implement.
A RTS where you start with a group, have to plan out a strategy and implement it with the force you where give at the start. *gasp.* How is this revolutionary?
PS Base building elements exist in my 'ultimate game idea' but it works in this way: You secure a place to build a base using a mercenary force. You then build your base and after you have a base large enough you start producing NPC units.
The twist? You don't use these units to strike at some enemy base within the map you have secured. No you use them to strike at enemies on OTHER maps. This gives the illusion your main base is back line while the battles are taking place many many KM away from the safety of these manufacturing buildings.
You have to think ahead more too, cause the battle isn't taking place on one map. Moving all your forces to one map could lead to counter attacks against your main base. Should you be that bad a tactician to leave one of your many flanks exposed.
Now why couldn't I be rich to pay someone to program this MASSIVE idea....