Warhammer 40k Dawn of War Open Beta

[Sky]

I could never get any of my AD&D group to play WH40k, but from reading this thread, it sounds pretty true to the tabletop game. I love painting the (overpriced) GW minis, I think I'll check this out just to see them come to life and finally play the dern game.

An old man question: can you pause to issue orders (for single player, obviously)? I like to play slowly and get a good view of what's going on tactically.

[daveNYC]

I heard that you could, but haven't checked it out yet.  My major breakthrough was discovering that an alt-tab out and in of the game would restore the fonts.

[schild]

I could never get any of my AD&D group to play WH40k, but from reading this thread, it sounds pretty true to the tabletop game.

No, it's not. Not at all.

(That excludes the figure painting part. Yes you can paint them. In a limited fashion.)

[kaid]

The feel of it is similar to the table top rules as they tried to be true to the nature of the races they picked but the rules are very very different. This is not a bad thing a RTS game and a turned based table top game are different beasts and trying to graft the rules from the latter to the former is a HUGE mistake.

kaid

[HaemishM]

I think it has the flavor of the table top game without abandoning RTS tenets. Having played a few tutorial games at work, it definitely plays well as an RTS. I have little doubt that I either won't play the Multiplayer at all (as my home machine seems to have issues with LameSpy) or will only play with people I know who aren't total cockmunchers.

Competitive MP RTS games are the most munchkin-oriented build fast 2 crush pieces of shit games EVER. It's all about building as fast as possible with no thought given to a strategy other than CRUSH CRUSH CRUSH! It reminds me of tournament Magic the Gathering, and those are the types of things I can't stand.

[schild]

It reminds me of tournament Magic the Gathering, and those are the types of things I can't stand.

Very few games will ever reach the amount of depth in strategy M:tG has become in the last decade. It is not fair to compare it to any video game or pnp game on the market (I'd have said this 5 years ago as well).

[Sky]

I phrased it badly, as usual. I meant it seemed to capture the flavor of the game.

[Alluvian]

It reminds me of tournament Magic the Gathering, and those are the types of things I can't stand.

Very few games will ever reach the amount of depth in strategy M:tG has become in the last decade. It is not fair to compare it to any video game or pnp game on the market (I'd have said this 5 years ago as well).

He wasn't even talking about strategy Schild, he was talking about levels of cockmongery.  And MTG tournaments and RTS online games are a pretty close match for cockmongery in my experience.  It is not a jab at the quality of MTG or the RTS genre.  Just one of those human nature things were too many people value winning over entertainment.

I would not really take what Schild has been saying to heart sky.  Give the beta a try if it is open and all (I am not sure what the exact status is).  It is definately worth the download just to watch the art design of all these wonderfully varied units crushing each other.  As a warhammer 40k player (not in a long time though) I definately say it captures the spirit of the game within an RTS environment.

I would love to see a mod for the game where you spent points on your squads up front and then fought with what you had like how 40k is setup.  But if it has to be in RTS form I think they did a pretty good job.  Bugs left to squish, lots of balance issues I am sure to iron out, but the foundation is solid and quite fun IMO.

So far I have only played space marines and ork.  They play quite different and both have a good 'feel' to them.

[HaemishM]

I not only meant to compare the cockmongery in competitive MP RTS to Magic, but the way in which you have to play in order to not get stomped (and thus not enjoy the experience).

With Magic it's build the most efficient deck possible to win in as little time as possible. With RTS, it's have the most efficient build order and follow it to the letter.

Both take strategy and thought (well, until you put it on the web and every munchkin typing with his dick copies it), but not at the moment of execution. It's all pre-game/meta-game bullshit, which can be fun, but renders the actual experience of playing nothing more than performing a series of actions in rote fashion.

Like a robot. A big, fruit-molesting robot.

I like the actions I make both before and during action to matter, which is why I prefer turn-based.

That said, for an RTS, so long as DOW irons out the hitching issue and has a single-player skirmish mode involved, I'm there.

[schild]

With Magic it's build the most efficient deck possible to win in as little time as possible. With RTS, it's have the most efficient build order and follow it to the letter.

Many people do that, and most of those people have numbers in their names. But there are still ways to shut that down. Both of my decks are very slow to build decks but completely control (without the use of a single counterspell, I might add) what the opponent can and will play. Both of them win late in the game (10-15 turns) about 80% of the time. Sometimes with an amazing drop, sure - I'll win before someone gets a single item on the table that can harm me. But I will lay on the table that it is more possible for me to find an intelligent adult in MtGO than playing someone randomly in an RTS.

[Megrim]

I not only meant to compare the cockmongery in competitive MP RTS to Magic, but the way in which you have to play in order to not get stomped (and thus not enjoy the experience).

With Magic it's build the most efficient deck possible to win in as little time as possible. With RTS, it's have the most efficient build order and follow it to the letter.

Both take strategy and thought (well, until you put it on the web and every munchkin typing with his dick copies it), but not at the moment of execution. It's all pre-game/meta-game bullshit, which can be fun, but renders the actual experience of playing nothing more than performing a series of actions in rote fashion.

Like a robot. A big, fruit-molesting robot.

I like the actions I make both before and during action to matter, which is why I prefer turn-based.

That said, for an RTS, so long as DOW irons out the hitching issue and has a single-player skirmish mode involved, I'm there.

Please stop. Just, stop. You are making my groin hurt.

Your inability to play RTSs is no reason to claim that they are all shit and take no skill.

[Rasix]

Please stop. Just, stop. You are making my groin hurt.

Your inability to play RTSs is no reason to claim that they are all shit and take no skill.

Reading comprehension is hard for some.  

Really, can you just go back to whatever FPS/RTS forum circle jerk that accidentally linked here and stay for good?  

Feel free to insult me skill at playing games below.  Because I know it makes your penis feel large.

[Megrim]

Please stop. Just, stop. You are making my groin hurt.

Your inability to play RTSs is no reason to claim that they are all shit and take no skill.

Reading comprehension is hard for some.  

Really, can you just go back to whatever FPS/RTS forum circle jerk that accidentally linked here and stay for good?  

Feel free to insult me skill at playing games below.  Because I know it makes your penis feel large.

I presume you are referring to yourself? Look, i know it can be hard, but if you try, try, and then try some more, someday you could do it! Believe in yourself man, and you shall overcome your self-doubts!

[stray]

He didn't say he had an "inability to play" or that they didn't take skill. He just said they weren't his cup of tea. Think about what he said: "Moment of execution". It's the difference between "strategy" and "tactics". Have you even played turn-based or are you just that fucking stupid?

[Megrim]

He didn't say he had an "inability to play" or that they didn't take skill. He just said they weren't his cup of tea. Think about what he said: "Moment of execution". It's the difference between "strategy" and "tactics". Have you even played turn-based or are you just that fucking stupid?

See, the way i read it, he didn't say that it "wasn't his cup of tea". Just like you calling me fucking stupid isn't you saying that i'm "not your cup of tea" ('cause you know i am ababy). You, are trying to insult me.

And yes.. i did read the part where he said "moment of execution". What you on the other hand fail to grasp, is that real-time strategy does, in actual fact, require a boat-load of strategy. And no, turn-based is not the epitome of Strategy play. It's just the slower version.

Sheesh, i guess reading comprehension really is hard.

[schild]

The retard slap fight is over.

[stray]

What you on the other hand fail to grasp, is that real-time strategy does, in actual fact, require a boat-load of strategy.

I didn't fail to grasp anything. They require almost nothing but strategy. What they don't make a lot of use of (with some exceptions) is tactics.

[Megrim]

What you on the other hand fail to grasp, is that real-time strategy does, in actual fact, require a boat-load of strategy.

I didn't fail to grasp anything. They require almost nothing but strategy. What they don't make a lot of use of (with some exceptions) is tactics.

Aw come-on! How can you say they require no tactics. I mean, honestly?! It's like telling me that i'm not actually breathing oxygen.

Can you please give me just one example of an RTS that requires no tactics? Micromanagement has been an essential part of every singe RTS i'v ever played, from Dune 2 to Dawn of War.

And regarding the topic at hand, DoW is probably the best example of a well-balanced game in terms of both strategy and tactics. On the one hand, you have micro in the use of squads, special abilities, flanking, melee/morale timing, etc.. while on the other hand you have a nice healthy non-invasive style of base & resource management, and plenty of time to plan and execute your "winning" plans.

Certainly there are plenty of flaws atm, but  they are for the most part what one would expect from a beta (i.e. balance issues) and not game-breaking design decisions.

I realise that i'm arguing against what would appear to be the "standard" forum consensus here, but it's just common-sense to not write off everything you don't like as "cock".

[Alluvian]

I am going to entirely ignore the fucking stupid slapfight and just make some comments about coop play.

Kaid and I played about a dozen games coop vs the computer.  Very entertaining.  If you want to get bitchslapped just put it on hard.  He gets a VERY fast legup on technology.  Took a coordinated effort for us 2vs1 on hard actually.  But we kinda suck at RTS as well.  But it was a fun fight.

Another intersting challenge we found was to let the computer outnumber you 3-2 or even 4-2 on standard and play annihilate, take and hold, and the one where you can win by having 50% or more of the strategic points.  The computer fans out FAST and takes strat points like a freak.  If he outnumbers you he will grab 50% very quick.  It can be a nice challenge to spread out enough to keep them contained.

My only issue so far is that standard is too easy unless you let him outnumber you and hard is abit too hard.  Although the 2vs1 we played last night was fun.

I was playing space marines, he was playing orks.  He got hit with a full assault of dreadnaughts, a land raider, a commander, and the standard infanty.  He didn't have enough missile troops to defend, but I had been stockpiling behind a wall of heavy bolter turrets and had 2 dreads and three fully upgraded space marine rocket launcher groups (upgraded to four rockets).  When I saw him going down I stuck the marines in the orbital platform building and then dropped them and the dreads inside his base to fend off the attack.  I was amazed how good those space marine rocket launcher groups are vs tanks and dreadnaughts.  After this save we pushed back to midfield, I had a few more dreads and space marine squads ready for drop as he built up his force again, then we crushed him with combined arms.  The computer had one last huge force to send against us, plobably 5 or 6 dreads, a land raider, and a ton of troops, but with ork and marine that didn't stand a chance.  By the time we finished that the squiggoth was ready and it was all over.

I just love the space marine side.  I will give up their having an uber unit anyday for their ability to orbital drop units.  Hell, the land raider is about half an uber unit.  I think it takes only two to kill the squiggoth (by far the best in a one on one competition with anything).  A couple dreads and a space marine missile squad can pretty easily kill the eldar avatar.  And the bloodthirster is frankly an overly expensive wuss whose only good is the fact that you can infiltrate him inside a base with a standard chaos marine squad and sarge.

Anyway, I am really loving this game.  The huge battles are just a joy to behold.  With the space marines I feel I have abit more control over what is going on.  I can send out expeditionary forces and turn them into full attacks at the drop of a few combat  pods and teleporting terminators.  A terminator squad led by a librarian with that power that keeps anyone from dying while active if insanely deadly.  They can take out squiggoth I think.

[stray]

I just want to point out that the slap fight was entirely one-sided.

[Murgos]

I just want to point out that the slap fight was entirely one-sided.

But you were the one getting slapped.

Stupid comments like "Theres no tactics involved in any RTS."  just beg for a beating why even make them?

Anyway, DoW has by far more tactical and strategical depth than any RTS I've ever played (not that I'm a connoisseur or anything).  Everything from grand strategy such as matching your races strengths against your opponents races weaknesses to build strategys like deciding when to 'tech up' or if and when to switch from a defensive to an offensive construction strategy (or vice versa), its even better in multiplayer teams because then your making decisions based on reinforcing a teammates attack and what to keep back for your own defense.  There is ample reward for using ploys like flanking maneuvers (I pulled off a great flanking maneuver last night that ended a 2 hr war of attrition in minutes) and feints.

Tactically DoW also shines, you need to organize effectively on the battle field hand to hand units up front, ranged unites to the rear, anti-armor ready to respond to hot-spots.  Do you drop some units in behind the enemy to go after his artillary?  What about picking that moment when the tide of battle has turned against you and its time to withdraw back to your lines before you are left to weak to defend yourself?

Eh, enough feeding the troll.

[kaid]

Yup the 2vs1 fight vs a hard computer ai was a pretty good one.  The resource bonus of the computer on hard makes it pretty much insane at least for us to take on even up.

I wish there was something between standard and hard as standard is a bit to weak unless they outnumber you and hard is pretty crazy even up. They get a HUGE initial boost in resources and you get to stare at some really scary early dreadnaught rushes. If you can fend those off long enough to build up a good force you can turn the tide but early survivial is tough.

The main thing I think standard ai needs is a tweak when doing capture and hold to be a bit more agressive vs the cap points. We had a couple games that it was pounding the hell out of alluvian while it was just ignoring my storm boyz on the cap points.

Overall the ai is pretty respectable and going against a hard opponent is a challange. Had alluvian not dropped most of his forces into my base the enemy would have crushed me. And after I went it would have focused directly at him and with the resource boost it would have been very difficult for him to survive.

The orks play VERY orky and I really enjoy them. The squiggoth is funny as hell but usually if you can actually GET him into play either one of two things happened A the game is already over or B the opponent is just being an utter lame brain and you are intentionally delaying killing him.

I had a squig out in that last fight but by the time I did we had plenty of force on hand to make the final rush ourselves. It would have cost us more troops but we could have done it.  Honestly its not a bad thing though as the squig is HELLUVA tough critter. Its the only super unit with a ranged attack, he is repairable, he is a troop transport. If you can get him into play loading up a couple nobz squadz in it and combat droppping them after squiggy waltzes into a base is a great way of causing devestation.


Eldar seem fun pretty well balanced very potent but expensive and requiring alot of upgrades before they really shine. They get some really killer pretty vehicals like the prism tank which is one of the best all around anti infantry units in the game. If you are taking active control over them you can run mobs around and keep the hard hitting melee units out of play by combo of units fast speed and its jump ability. The avatar is VERY impressive and pretty easy to get out. He is ALOT easier to field than the squiggoth but also dies pretty easily to the squig.


Chaos I have not played them enough to form a real opinion. Their defilers are very nasty and their base troops are pretty tough. Their demons are odd ball things and I have not formed a real opinion of their use. The bloodthirster itself does not seem strong enough. For as tough to make and deploy as it is the unit does not seem strong enough. It is easily owned by a reasonable fighting force and gets its ass smacked by any uber unit like the avatar or squiggoth.


Kaid

[HaemishM]

I will repost what I already said about RTS's.

Both take strategy and thought (well, until you put it on the web and every munchkin typing with his dick copies it), but not at the moment of execution. It's all pre-game/meta-game bullshit, which can be fun, but renders the actual experience of playing nothing more than performing a series of actions in rote fashion.

I never said it doesn't require strategy or tactics to compete in an RTS. I DID say that I do not enjoy Multiplayer Competitive RTS'es and it's precisely because of what I said above. I like to have the time to think while making my moves, and most RTSes, especially competitive ones, do not allow that sort of time. I do not think well on my feet, as it were, so RTSes are not a fit.

Now, to elaborate on the copying strategy part, many of the bottom-dwelling retards who play RTS guys online competitively can win simply by following someone else's build order and not mis-clicking too many times, just as many munchkins can take a Magic deck they found on the web and do very well in tournamets. Again, that's not strategy or tactics to me, that is HERD mentality, and both Magic and RTS'es tend to attract that type of gamer.

[stray]

But you were the one getting slapped.

Stupid comments like "Theres no tactics involved in any RTS." just beg for a beating why even make them?

Read what I said. Don't be like Megrim. It's one thing to disagree with me, but try not to misunderstand me.

I didn't say "no tactics". I said they don't allow you to make a lot of use of them (but there are some exceptions)...Whether because of time constraints like Haemish said, or because the strategy most catered to usually amounts to mass (there are no tactics in that, it's just strategy, no matter how much micromanagement is involved...and there's certainly no way to adapt to it except to play the same way).

Eh, enough feeding the troll.

I never said anything bad about DoW. I'm merely bringing up a debate that's been going on for years (this was slowly becoming an RTS thread anyways). Good games like Total War or GC wouldn't be here if people didn't bitch about the lack of real tactical gameplay in the RTS genre in the first place. So maybe DoW is one of them...

[Megrim]

I will repost what I already said about RTS's.

Both take strategy and thought (well, until you put it on the web and every munchkin typing with his dick copies it), but not at the moment of execution. It's all pre-game/meta-game bullshit, which can be fun, but renders the actual experience of playing nothing more than performing a series of actions in rote fashion.

I never said it doesn't require strategy or tactics to compete in an RTS. I DID say that I do not enjoy Multiplayer Competitive RTS'es and it's precisely because of what I said above. I like to have the time to think while making my moves, and most RTSes, especially competitive ones, do not allow that sort of time. I do not think well on my feet, as it were, so RTSes are not a fit.

Now, to elaborate on the copying strategy part, many of the bottom-dwelling retards who play RTS guys online competitively can win simply by following someone else's build order and not mis-clicking too many times, just as many munchkins can take a Magic deck they found on the web and do very well in tournamets. Again, that's not strategy or tactics to me, that is HERD mentality, and both Magic and RTS'es tend to attract that type of gamer.

Point taken. But have you considered (and i don't mean this as an insult) that maybe you are not thinking fast enough?
I realise that there are many different factors involved and that there is a certain pleasure in playing, say, chess - thinking through & contemplating each move well in advance (as well as age to an extent. I'm twenty-one and i'm already feeling a little old on occasion when dealing with some games); but it seems to me that for this reason an RTS is superior to a turn-based version. More specifically in that they require both good planning AND non-sloppy execution.

The other point you bring up, the community.. well, meh. I don't think there is really anything one can do about it. I can think of, maybe two games that i've played that have a mature, intellegent community (three, if the populace of this board was to constitute a majority portion of an online game). Even the best games have a large portion of shitkickers that lack everything from imagination to talent.

However, the upshot of everyone running net-decks is that with a little planning, beating them becomes a non-issue. Hell, they all play the same way so beating them doesen't even require any thought past the first couple of games.

 - Meg

[Jain Zar]

Most RTSes have more in common with arcade games than strategy games.  

And Haemish is right.  I remember going on Battlenet a few times just to try out Warcraft 3, only to be screamed at if I didnt have item X built by minute Y and told to go watch replays so I learned how to play.  This is standard for the genre.  Its not about strategy, its about hotkey memorization and how quick you can build up.

Dawn of War reduces this, but it is still there.   Its a good RTS, but its still just another RTS.

[HaemishM]

I will repost what I already said about RTS's.

Both take strategy and thought (well, until you put it on the web and every munchkin typing with his dick copies it), but not at the moment of execution. It's all pre-game/meta-game bullshit, which can be fun, but renders the actual experience of playing nothing more than performing a series of actions in rote fashion.

I never said it doesn't require strategy or tactics to compete in an RTS. I DID say that I do not enjoy Multiplayer Competitive RTS'es and it's precisely because of what I said above. I like to have the time to think while making my moves, and most RTSes, especially competitive ones, do not allow that sort of time. I do not think well on my feet, as it were, so RTSes are not a fit.

Now, to elaborate on the copying strategy part, many of the bottom-dwelling retards who play RTS guys online competitively can win simply by following someone else's build order and not mis-clicking too many times, just as many munchkins can take a Magic deck they found on the web and do very well in tournamets. Again, that's not strategy or tactics to me, that is HERD mentality, and both Magic and RTS'es tend to attract that type of gamer.

Point taken. But have you considered (and i don't mean this as an insult) that maybe you are not thinking fast enough?

Read it again. Didn't I just say that? I.e. "I don't think well on my feet." No, I'm not thinking or reacting fast enough, and most of the time in RTS'es, I'm dead before I get to the second tech level upgrade. Which is why I don't generally like RTS'es. However, I do like Dawn of War, but most likely won't play it Multiplayer, because I'm just never going to be good enough to be competitive.

However, the upshot of everyone running net-decks is that with a little planning, beating them becomes a non-issue. Hell, they all play the same way so beating them doesen't even require any thought past the first couple of games.

The downshot of knowing how to beat netdecks and net-strategies is that the games lose all form of dynamism. It's all about speed at that point, and as I said, I don't do speed well. The games become a rote scenario that's already been played out before it ever began. That's not fun to me. Some people enjoy it, some people, we'll call them cockmunchers, get some form of ego-boosting thrill off of it. These are the ones proliferating these netdecks.

I enjoy playing games a certain way. I'm a whiny bitch about it, actually. It's why I don't play Games Workshop tabletop games anymore, unless I'm playing with certain people who do not take the path of least resistance. Because if the game is won before you reach the table, it may be a great simulation of war, but it's not a very fun game.