05-17-2009, 03:10 PM
So lately, thanks to a birthday gift from my girlfriend, I've been playing around with Warhammer 40K: Dawn of War 2.
First, let's get this out of the way. I'm a huge Dawn of War fan, less so a WH40K one. I've played the first DoW through Dark Crusade, and dabbled
a little in Soulstorm, though not as much given it was outsourced. I'm also an RTS junkie and it's a rare RTS that doesn't appeal to me in at least
some way. Yes, even the cheap ass ones from developers you've never heard of.
Anyway, Dawn of War was pretty revolutionary in its time. The focus on Strategic Points to generate resources as opposed to mining resources from static fields
made early expansion and conquest of unclaimed territory a big deal, making the gameplay far more aggressive than RTSes that allow a more turtling style of
play. Not to say DoW didn't allow turtling. The Necrons and Imperial Guard alone made defensive play an interesting and valid tactic. However, even with
these adjustments and other additions(squads had add-on sargeants and leader units, as well as upgradeable weapons), the game was still easily recognizable as
an RTS. The basic endgame tactic of "sit back, build your resources while fending off attack and then crush the enemy with overwhelming force" was
still viable.
DoW2 is an entirely different beast that's taken an age old argument about RTS games between me and a friend of mine and put it center stage. He noted he
always hated RTS because Patton or Rommel didn't stop, build factories for their tanks, and then strip mine Africa for resources to continue fighting each
other. They started out with the units they had and reinforcements and then made due.
Dawn of War 2 is very much in favor of this opinion. While a few teams can build structures, they're inevitably front line units designed to enhance
assaults. The Tyranids and Space Marines(which I've tried thus far) both have the ability to spawn structures which increase the hitpoint regeneration and
reinforcement speed of their squads, and the Tyranids can even aggressively "Tyranoform" the planet with massive cappilary towers that buff all
allies in their range. The Techmarine hero, by contrast, is also able to summon defensive turrets at any location, an ability that is unique to him and
categorizes him as the "Defensive Archetype" hero of the three SM top guns.
The most controversial addition from some angles has been the hero system. DoW heroes were very hands free before. You simply had them attached to a squad and
could use their powers when you wanted, but they weren't a huge impact on the battlefield after the early game where they could mop the floor with most
infantry or the late game where they got their best powers(such as the Force Commander's orbital bombardment). Here, you get one hero out of three classes
your faction has. Each has their own unique way to enhance your basic troops, but doesn't really overpower it. I find myself more often selecting them
based off what global powers the hero gives you(gameplay map powers that are in play regardless of if your hero is alive or dead), more than what the heroes
themselves allow you to do. For the Tyranids, the choice is assisted by only one hero actually producing synapse effects that larger Tyranids tend to
(Warriors/Carnifex/Zoanthropes), that being the Hive Tyrant. Another hero can gain upgrades that do this, but only the Tyrant does it from the start.
Similarly, the leveling up function is something I could stand to see in more RTSes. Units that've survived considerable battles and killed many foes have
leveled up in a simple fashion: their stats are better. They hit harder, take hits better, move faster, etc. This applies not just to heroes, but to any unit
period. Admittedly, seeing a high level spawn of Ripper Swarms is unlikely, but units with survivability(like a Carnifex) are terrifying after only a few
battles that they live through.
However, in the end, it's the little things that break it for me. Cover is very important in this game. Grenades, flamers, vehicle trample, jump jets and
teleportation all are very well designed to incorporate the cover concept by countering it. Similarly, suppression fire(firing so much that units are pinned
down and can't move as fast or at all, depending on the unit) is similarly a major factor that hasn't ever really been in an RTS. But using both of
these boils down to the bane of casual RTS players everywhere: micromanaging. The level of micro necessary to use the system to the fullest puts Starcraft
expert players to shame, almost. And the computer already knows how to do it, so playing at higher difficulties is likely to be annoying. Add in the lack of
fixed fortifications of any kind, even so much as turrets that allow me to use a few units to bottleneck a pass without worrying about the complicated
cover/suppression/infantry/vehicle dynamics, and in three multiplayer games, even with AI teammates, I've never felt like I'm playing proactively.
I'm just reacting most of the time to what the AI, friendly or enemy, is doing, and trying to add as best I can. When easy AI teammates make me feel like
the dunce newbie player that has no idea how to play the game, what's obviously a well designed and balanced game starts feeling....unfun.
It's not that DoW is a bad game. It's not even that it's not a real time strategy game. It's that it doesn't feel like an RTS. It's
captured the word of the definition while ignoring the spirit to me, which may be innovative, but there's something to be said for "if it's not
broke, don't fix it". The more "battle going back and forth" may be points in favor of combat realism, but I don't play the game for
combat realism so much as fun strategy.
Of course, I'm sure the tabletop gamers will be thrilled by a version of the game that accurately reflects the tabletop more. Me? I'll be over here
mourning my dreadnought rushes.
---
"Oh, silver blade, forged in the depths of the beyond. Heed my summons and purge those who stand in my way. Lay
waste."
First, let's get this out of the way. I'm a huge Dawn of War fan, less so a WH40K one. I've played the first DoW through Dark Crusade, and dabbled
a little in Soulstorm, though not as much given it was outsourced. I'm also an RTS junkie and it's a rare RTS that doesn't appeal to me in at least
some way. Yes, even the cheap ass ones from developers you've never heard of.
Anyway, Dawn of War was pretty revolutionary in its time. The focus on Strategic Points to generate resources as opposed to mining resources from static fields
made early expansion and conquest of unclaimed territory a big deal, making the gameplay far more aggressive than RTSes that allow a more turtling style of
play. Not to say DoW didn't allow turtling. The Necrons and Imperial Guard alone made defensive play an interesting and valid tactic. However, even with
these adjustments and other additions(squads had add-on sargeants and leader units, as well as upgradeable weapons), the game was still easily recognizable as
an RTS. The basic endgame tactic of "sit back, build your resources while fending off attack and then crush the enemy with overwhelming force" was
still viable.
DoW2 is an entirely different beast that's taken an age old argument about RTS games between me and a friend of mine and put it center stage. He noted he
always hated RTS because Patton or Rommel didn't stop, build factories for their tanks, and then strip mine Africa for resources to continue fighting each
other. They started out with the units they had and reinforcements and then made due.
Dawn of War 2 is very much in favor of this opinion. While a few teams can build structures, they're inevitably front line units designed to enhance
assaults. The Tyranids and Space Marines(which I've tried thus far) both have the ability to spawn structures which increase the hitpoint regeneration and
reinforcement speed of their squads, and the Tyranids can even aggressively "Tyranoform" the planet with massive cappilary towers that buff all
allies in their range. The Techmarine hero, by contrast, is also able to summon defensive turrets at any location, an ability that is unique to him and
categorizes him as the "Defensive Archetype" hero of the three SM top guns.
The most controversial addition from some angles has been the hero system. DoW heroes were very hands free before. You simply had them attached to a squad and
could use their powers when you wanted, but they weren't a huge impact on the battlefield after the early game where they could mop the floor with most
infantry or the late game where they got their best powers(such as the Force Commander's orbital bombardment). Here, you get one hero out of three classes
your faction has. Each has their own unique way to enhance your basic troops, but doesn't really overpower it. I find myself more often selecting them
based off what global powers the hero gives you(gameplay map powers that are in play regardless of if your hero is alive or dead), more than what the heroes
themselves allow you to do. For the Tyranids, the choice is assisted by only one hero actually producing synapse effects that larger Tyranids tend to
(Warriors/Carnifex/Zoanthropes), that being the Hive Tyrant. Another hero can gain upgrades that do this, but only the Tyrant does it from the start.
Similarly, the leveling up function is something I could stand to see in more RTSes. Units that've survived considerable battles and killed many foes have
leveled up in a simple fashion: their stats are better. They hit harder, take hits better, move faster, etc. This applies not just to heroes, but to any unit
period. Admittedly, seeing a high level spawn of Ripper Swarms is unlikely, but units with survivability(like a Carnifex) are terrifying after only a few
battles that they live through.
However, in the end, it's the little things that break it for me. Cover is very important in this game. Grenades, flamers, vehicle trample, jump jets and
teleportation all are very well designed to incorporate the cover concept by countering it. Similarly, suppression fire(firing so much that units are pinned
down and can't move as fast or at all, depending on the unit) is similarly a major factor that hasn't ever really been in an RTS. But using both of
these boils down to the bane of casual RTS players everywhere: micromanaging. The level of micro necessary to use the system to the fullest puts Starcraft
expert players to shame, almost. And the computer already knows how to do it, so playing at higher difficulties is likely to be annoying. Add in the lack of
fixed fortifications of any kind, even so much as turrets that allow me to use a few units to bottleneck a pass without worrying about the complicated
cover/suppression/infantry/vehicle dynamics, and in three multiplayer games, even with AI teammates, I've never felt like I'm playing proactively.
I'm just reacting most of the time to what the AI, friendly or enemy, is doing, and trying to add as best I can. When easy AI teammates make me feel like
the dunce newbie player that has no idea how to play the game, what's obviously a well designed and balanced game starts feeling....unfun.
It's not that DoW is a bad game. It's not even that it's not a real time strategy game. It's that it doesn't feel like an RTS. It's
captured the word of the definition while ignoring the spirit to me, which may be innovative, but there's something to be said for "if it's not
broke, don't fix it". The more "battle going back and forth" may be points in favor of combat realism, but I don't play the game for
combat realism so much as fun strategy.
Of course, I'm sure the tabletop gamers will be thrilled by a version of the game that accurately reflects the tabletop more. Me? I'll be over here
mourning my dreadnought rushes.
---
"Oh, silver blade, forged in the depths of the beyond. Heed my summons and purge those who stand in my way. Lay
waste."
