Hey, I recently picked up the DoW II game and am really enjoying it, but I was wondering if anyone new why I keep getting Dreadnought armor when no one in my entire group even has the potential to wear it?

Aside from that I find the game useful for providing visuals of equipment I didn't have a precise mental picture of and driving home some concepts; like the nature of the setting making for items of power worn by heroes in great battles and conveying part of that to the wielder, etc.

Not to mention the fact that the game really drives a nail into the idea of just how baddass Space Marines are.

PS. Has anyone played the first DoW? Is it worth getting after I've played #2?

Jack of Tears said:

Yes, I have played DoW1 extensively.

DoW1 is based primarily on the base building, and producing a lot of troops/warfare. In that sense it differs strongly from DoW2. The downside is that the Space Marines are breeding and dying like flies, which is not cool. However, if you can abstract from their godlike nature, that's a definitely game to play.

As for DoW2, that was a big disappointment for me.

To my view, this is a typical XBoX/PS platformer. There is no base building at all and there is almost no strategy, but mild tactics. There are just space marines, grnnnn-grnnnn of the chainswords and dakka-dakka-dakka of bolters. Sure, the SMs are depicted more realistically here, but the game design point of view - that's lame.

And what is most irritating is that there are no saves during the mission!

However, I will try to play that again.

>> There is no base building at all and there is almost no strategy, but mild tactics.<<

Ah, see, that's what I liked about it. It is deffinately a game for casual rts players, there can be no doubt about that - but I really prefer the squad based settup to the larger rts design wherefrom you have to construct new buildings, dig for resources, raise sheep, etc. Those games always bored me ... and normally I'm a difficult person to bore. The "send out your scout, pull up your troops, make use of the cover effectively, and-so-on mild strategy of this game made it a far better match for what I want in an rts experience.

>> And what is most irritating is that there are no saves during the mission! <<

I like that insomuch as it amps up the tension and doesn't give you the option of redoing your poor decisions or mistakes. (I lost all but one unit because I wasn't paying attention in one mission) Though I could see where - if you were playing it at the most difficult levels - the possibility of having to play the same mission over and over might get very frustrating.

Note: I am playing this on PC, so I don't know how the difficulty might differ in the translation from console - and thus don't know if saving becomes a bigger issue.

No, it's not Settlers at all, there's no need to raise sheeps but you will have to acquire some sort of "resources" and produce energy to build a base and raise a force. Also, you have to be able to construct some sturdy defences.

Also note, that during the time of DoW1 publishing the developers noted that they tried to deviate from the usual base building towards more fighting busniess. Which was then ultimately achieved in DoW2, I suppose.

As for the lack of saves - sometimes I might not have enough time to finish the mission, so I will be forced to abandon it. That's not fair, to say the least.

In any case, DoW1 should be at least tried out by those who liked DoW2.

Thanks, if I can find a cheap copy I'll take a look at it.

Oh, and I discovered the answer to my Dreadnought question ... and it's pretty **** sweet.

Combat tactics are infinitely more complex than the original Dawn of War, with the timing of assault moves, cover, formations, pincers etc all coming into play. In DoW, the real skill was in resource management, combat tended to degenerate into massive unco ordinated armies smashing into each other. In DoW2 there are raids, strategic acquisition of targets, retreating, covering fire. It's actualy got all the depth and intelligence of DoW, just in another area.

Well, the original DoW already has all the major armies (and a few that probably didn't have to make the cut) coded in if you get the platinum pack that has all three expansions included (although to be honest, Soulstorm is kind of half-baked compared to the other two.)

Overall, I found that DoW2 is more cerebral then DoW was, which was pretty much the standard RTS drone. DoW2 on the other hand forces you to actually plan your moves ahead of time, especially in the single player. I've had fun despite the fact that I keep crashing in the battle to reclaim Angel Gate...

I really like how true DoW2 is to the 40k game. The original DoW was just a standard RTS game with a 40k skin. Granted, it was a very good RTS game (and still worth getting!) but DoW2 feels much more like playing a game of 40k.

I also like that there's such a big difference between the single player campaign and multiplayer games.

If I have one beef with the single player campaign, it's that I didn't like the idea of "boss fights" that felt weirdly artificial and I didn't enjoy them at all. Other than that though, I thought (think) it's a good game. Just need more chaos!

Strangely, DoW2 reminds me of Z.

egalor said:

I too played DoW1 a lot. I reccomend it. It's a *far* more traditional RTS than DoW2, but is still a high quality RTS. The 'nids are the only major race not covered, and I personally am not a huge fan of how the Tau was implimented. Still, it's a lot of fun.

DoW2 was fantastic for me though. I came to this from Company of Heroes, and thus was comfortable with the whole cover system. I don't know where you got the idea that this game was a platformer. Yes, you can only command 4 squads at once, and yes, there is no base management, nor any real resource management until you hit multiplayer, but a platformer it is most certainly not. In fact, I have no idea how you *could* impliment the game as a console title. Each squad has the potential to be far, far more flexible than the limited number of buttons on a controller would allow.

Also, I never minded that there are no saves during the mission. I played the game through three times, including the hardest difficulty, and I think the longest mission took 35 minutes. Most missions complete in 15-20 minutes tops. If you don't have enough time for a 20 minute session, you probably should be playing a different game.

The game is not a strategy game. It's a tactical game, and there's quite a bit of depth therein. I am willing to bet you played the game on the easiest setting, or perhaps one setting up. Play it on the hardest setting. It will chew you up, spit you out, and laugh in your face without good tactics and a firm grasp of the battlefield at any given moment. You won't say that there's only mild tactics after playing it at it's hardest level.

TheFlatline said:

Commanding a few soldiers in real time in short missions (20 mins is short) is too much arcade for me - that's why I referred to a platformer approach.

As for me, I prefer long-time missions, where I first have to erect a positional defense, secure the resources, ensure a steady inflow of troops, and then make a deadly strike. Personally, I hate those missions, where I have to move a soldier accross the battlefield, or accompany a caravan, or smth similar - that's why I didn't find DoW2 to be enjoyable as I expected it to be after DoW1.

In any case, I do recognize its tactical potential and I will most likely give it a second try.