Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Warhammer 40K: Dawn of War vs Starcraft

DarkUnderlord

Professional Throne Sitter
Staff Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2002
Messages
28,357
<strong>[ Review ]</strong>

<p>When I type, I tend to get carried away. Hopefully I actually make a few points though as opposed to just rambling. This month, I played Dawn of War and I've got a few things to say about it. </p><blockquote><p>There's a two year old review of <a href="http://dawnofwargame.com/" target="_blank">Dawn of War</a> up at IGN. It's called <a href="http://au.pc.ign.com/articles/533/533146p1.html" target="_blank">StarCraft vs Dawn of War</a>. It doesn't really reach any conclusion, it justs ask the question. Two years on I think it's time we gave them an answer.
</p></blockquote>Find out what that answer is for yourself in our monster review of the original Dawn of War (all patches installed but expansions not included).<br/><br/><strong>Read: </strong><a href="http://www.tacticularcancer.com/content.php?id=26">Warhammer 40K: Dawn of War vs Starcraft</a>
 
Joined
Nov 8, 2006
Messages
7,573
Location
New York
Nice detailed comparison of the two. I'm a big Starcraft fan, and from what I've read concerning Dawn of War, it doesn't sound like my cup of tea. Your review has reaffirmed that opinion. However, one question:

Let's say your army meets his army and you lose. That's it. You can't capture anymore strategic points until you've rebuilt your units. Now think about that for a moment. While you're rebuilding your units, his units are capturing even more strategic points. Even if you rebuild what units you can (with your dwindling resources now that your enemy is taking all your strategic points) and send them out, you're only going to encounter his units again. Given capturing strategic points gives you resources, that his army has defeated yours previously and that he's now captured more strategic points than you, he quickly gains the upper hand. Your game is over even before you get the chance to counter attack because by the time you do, he's got even more resources, which therefore means he has even more units, which means whatever you've built is going to die and die horribly. So, if you manage to capture and hold on to more strategic points than your opponent, you've generally got the game in the bag long before the final shot is even fired.

I'm not sure that's necessarily a bad feature (though I personally dislike the strategic point system). Don't you think if a player rolls the dice and gets involved in a large, pitched battle, that the loser should suffer serious, if not irrecvocable consequences, and that the initiative (and spoils) should go to the victor? Though it sounds, from your review, that a smaller army is routed quite easily by a larger force, so its probably a bad thing for Dawn of War.
 

DarkUnderlord

Professional Throne Sitter
Staff Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2002
Messages
28,357
Chinese Jetpilot said:
Don't you think if a player rolls the dice and gets involved in a large, pitched battle, that the loser should suffer serious, if not irrecvocable consequences, and that the initiative (and spoils) should go to the victor?
Yes and no. Some of the best games of Starcraft I ever had where were all our forces would meet each other in the middle of the map. Both sides would suffer heavy damages. Enough that even if he does manage to beat you, he can send all those units left over to your base but get creamed by your re-inforcements and base defenses. That gives you a chance to scramble together a counter-attack and maybe even win.

In Dawn of War, with the lack of viable defenses, the minute he wins that encounter, you're a dead man. For starters, one side has a tendency to win more than the other. I *think* this has something to do with one side losing units first, therefore giving the other side the manpower advantage which allows his remaining men to simply cut you down. Therefore he not only wins but wins by a fair margin.

Once he's won that battle, he's re-inforcing his squads in the field and sending them to your base. There is no last chance for a scrambled and desperate counter-attack, it's all over. Even if you do have some turrets defending your base though and that makes him hesitate (which it generally wouldn't be), you don't have units in the field to defend your strategic points. He just has to capture them at which point it's only a matter of time before you're dead.

Chinese Jetpilot said:
Though it sounds, from your review, that a smaller army is routed quite easily by a larger force, so its probably a bad thing for Dawn of War.
Routed so easily that unless you have a God unit, you're a dead man. Problem is, by the time you have a God unit (say a Predator tank), he's got them too. Unless of course he messed up his build order, in which case you'll win easily and then walk all over him.

On the other hand, I've had games in Starcraft where I've single handedly held off a full force of combined attacking allies (as in two players with all their units against my base) and later won the game. I'm talking about the all-out Protoss Carrier and Corsair attack from two opponents being thwarted by a wall of Photon Canons, High Templars and... those cloaking ships I've forgotten the name of which can cast that ice spell.

In Dawn of War, if they out-number you, there's nothing you can do. There are no units you can build to play a defensive game and no decent turrets which are going to hold their ground. You're just waiting to die.
 
Joined
Nov 8, 2006
Messages
7,573
Location
New York
Thanks for the clarification. My cousin is trying to get me to play Dawn of War, but the above just reinforces my apprehension towards doing so. There's nothing in the game that jumps out at me, grabs my cock, and says "U MUST PLAY".
 

Stainless

Novice
Joined
Dec 11, 2004
Messages
39
A few things I noticed;

the chaos/space marine 25% firepower, etc. Although the stats point to chaos having equal damage, they have lower accuracy, along with lower morale thresholds. It's simply a matter that Space Marines are of a higher standard then your CSM. One on one, the SM will win over a CSM. Space Marine squads also offer alot more versitility with their squads in their heavy weapons, CSMs on the other hand have the infiltration advantage. These two opposing units aren't carbon copies.

Where as a SM squad can be modified to anti-tank, CSM's cannot, having to rely on Horrors and other anti-vehicle units.

To this extent you can also debate the "more units, wins" statement (I'm being pretty basic with the quotes here DU :? ), akin to SC, each unit has it's own armour type, and often microning squads well enough so that heavy firepower ranged units are tied up with your close combat units is a good way to help tip the scales.

Finally, people aren't reduced to "I'll just spam CSM's and see how that goes" strat. With chaos alone there tends to be at least 3 strats you can run with at the very start, ranging from getting your cultists nade launcher happy with infiltration, to the more common zerker rush with it's bastard raptor harressment.
 

DarkUnderlord

Professional Throne Sitter
Staff Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2002
Messages
28,357
Stainless said:
the chaos/space marine 25% firepower, etc. Although the stats point to chaos having equal damage, they have lower accuracy, along with lower morale thresholds. It's simply a matter that Space Marines are of a higher standard then your CSM. One on one, the SM will win over a CSM.
That's the problem, you never get them one on one. Two on one maybe or three on two but never one on one. Even with their inaccuracy, they have a tendency to simply cut-down anything they out-man relatively quickly.

Stainless said:
Space Marine squads also offer alot more versitility with their squads in their heavy weapons, CSMs on the other hand have the infiltration advantage. These two opposing units aren't carbon copies.

Where as a SM squad can be modified to anti-tank, CSM's cannot, having to rely on Horrors and other anti-vehicle units.
CSM's can't? Last I checked, I've been using Chaos Space Marine rocket launcher's. CSM's have all the heavy weaponry that SM's do AND they have infiltration as well AND they out-number you by enough that their inaccuracy isn't much of an issue. Sure they don't have Rally for a Morale boost but with Berserker that also tends to not be an issue.

Mind you the game chugs like a bitch for me whenever anyone attacks given the whole 3d engine and all your units vs all his units thing going on. Enough that clicking on and rallying an SM squad is more of annoyance rather than being a nice quick movement. If your squad's lost that much morale though, chances are they're about to be cut down anyway.

Stainless said:
To this extent you can also debate the "more units, wins" statement (I'm being pretty basic with the quotes here DU :? ), akin to SC, each unit has it's own armour type, and often microning squads well enough so that heavy firepower ranged units are tied up with your close combat units is a good way to help tip the scales.
I do realise there are occasions when "more units, wins" is false such as a group of plain CSM's attacking a group of upgraded SM's but if he's upgraded, then you have too. If he's got Plasma Guns, so do you. If he's got Rocket Launchers, so do you.

There are also still units that seem to be far more effective than others as well simply because of sheer numbers. I played a Skirmish game against Ork testing out the effectiveness of Terminators. I dropped 4 squads (32 men, the most I could build) into the Ork base and watched as they lost morale and were cut-down. I then got 8 squads of SM's (72 men including Seargents which again, was the most I could get) and tried the same thing and watched as one group of SM's lost morale but the rest kept firing and because I had almost twice the number of men that I was attacking with compared to before with Terminators, my guys won. So while Terminators might be the better unit, the fact that I can build more of the other units means you're going to lose if you waste resources to get them.

Stainless said:
Finally, people aren't reduced to "I'll just spam CSM's and see how that goes" strat. With chaos alone there tends to be at least 3 strats you can run with at the very start, ranging from getting your cultists nade launcher happy with infiltration, to the more common zerker rush with it's bastard raptor harressment.
I can remember a game I played online where I went all out for CSM's while he got those red demon things. At first I thought "oh shit, he's got those more expensive demon things which I didn't bother getting. They're going to tear me apart" but then I watched as my guys cut them down before they even got close enough to attack. I love close-combat units. They're so wonderfully useless.

I'll admit that there are strategies (like attack with ground units now or attack with gorund units later) and that the player who knows how to Smite and Rally and Frag Grenade at the right time does have the advantage but still, if I out-number you while you're trying to micro-manage your squads, you're going to get cut-down. Again, it only helps tip the balance in an even competition. Given I'm going to be attacking you with everything I've got along with everything my ally has got as well, then unless you have more units from an ally to help you out and soon (in fact, instantaneously), you're not going to last no matter what you try and do.

kingcomrade said:
DU post your SC replays somewhere. That sounds like a good show.
I think they're all from before the patch update which messed up the old replays. Actually, I don't even think I have them on this computer either... Uherm.. In which case they would've been wiped in the upgrade anyway. I used to save most games I played when I started too but eventually stopped becase I figured I was never going to do anything with them.
 

kingcomrade

Kingcomrade
Edgy
Joined
Oct 16, 2005
Messages
26,884
Location
Cognitive Elite HQ
the chaos/space marine 25% firepower, etc. Although the stats point to chaos having equal damage, they have lower accuracy, along with lower morale thresholds. It's simply a matter that Space Marines are of a higher standard then your CSM. One on one, the SM will win over a CSM.

What's funny is that in tabletop CSM are superior to normal SM. They're cheaper, they've got the same stats, they can all take veteran skills, they don't need a special trait to take 2 special weapons per squad, they can take marks, they have access to autocannons (somewhat balanced by ISM access to assault cannons), they have more armory upgrades, etc. They've even got better morale. I really wish DoW had put in a 'Mark of Chaos' system instead of just putting in Berserkers. Plague Marines roxxor teh boxxor. Being able to buy a mark for the squad like a special weapon or something would've been really cool.

think they're all from before the patch update which messed up the old replays. Actually, I don't even think I have them on this computer either... Uherm.. In which case they would've been wiped in the upgrade anyway. I used to save most games I played when I started too but eventually stopped becase I figured I was never going to do anything with them.
Oh, well.
 

Stainless

Novice
Joined
Dec 11, 2004
Messages
39
DU said:
CSM's can't? Last I checked, I've been using Chaos Space Marine rocket launcher's. CSM's have all the heavy weaponry that SM's do AND they have infiltration as well AND they out-number you by enough that their inaccuracy isn't much of an issue. Sure they don't have Rally for a Morale boost but with Berserker that also tends to not be an issue.

I'd hazard a guess that the expansions and not the patches changed this then.

Currently in DC/WA CSMs can only get plasmas and bolters, raptors flamers. For any kind of anti-vehicle infantry a Chaos player has to tech up to teir 2 for horrors.

But I don't deny how horribly powerful the CSM's are. specially when they get infiltration. Even more so against races like Tau that don't really have much in the way of effective detectors.
 

kingcomrade

Kingcomrade
Edgy
Joined
Oct 16, 2005
Messages
26,884
Location
Cognitive Elite HQ
I'd hazard a guess that the expansions and not the patches changed this then.
Yeah, it's the expansions not the patches. In Winter Assault they can only have Heavy Bolters and in Dark Crusade they can only have HBs and Plasma Guns.
 

DarkUnderlord

Professional Throne Sitter
Staff Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2002
Messages
28,357
That'd actually change things. Going by some of the responses to the review on other sites, people have missed the "san expansions" part too. There've been a few mentions of Space Marines having Heavy Weapons there which threw me.

I had debated whether I'd revisit it with a follow-up once I'd installed the expansions but I'm still of the mind that they don't fix some of (what I feel at least are) the fundamental problems of the games. Basically people bitch that I like to turret. That's absolutely true. I also think that if you're going to have defenses then they should be able to actually, you know, defend.

Speaking of which, I presume turrets are still completely ineffective?
 

Ryuken

Liturgist
Joined
Feb 28, 2005
Messages
606
Location
Belgium
DoW has never been a turtle game but turrets in DC are usually much cheaper and can be placed everywhere. In your case, don't bother with Tau though, since they don't have turrets at all (only Broadsides who, in this version at least, can't be controlled once they are stationary, just like the IG HWT, some patches are underway though to fix that mess).
 

Stainless

Novice
Joined
Dec 11, 2004
Messages
39
However, Tau are a more entrenched play style, etc. I'm still not a fan of tau.

Turrets rarly hold their own, although I've held quite a few pushes on my base with a gretchens and a couple of waaagh banners.
 

DarkUnderlord

Professional Throne Sitter
Staff Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2002
Messages
28,357
UPDATE: I now wish I'd have finished the single player campaign before writing my review. It would've given me another two paragraph's of things to complain about at least.

For starters, it's completely lacking in any challenge what-so-ever. The last mission in fact is so easy that you can kill the Big Bad Foozle with the units you're given from the start! More than that, it's one of those lame "there's a sequel" endings. Instead of killing the Foozle and celebrating and yay etc... It ends like one of those bad movies which doesn't actually end but instead wants you to now go and wait for the sequel. See, you don't actually kill the Foozle in mission 11 (yes, only 11 single player "walk in the park" missions), you "release it" and then the Foozle is all nice and says "I could kill you know but I won't LAWLZ becoz then there'd be no sequels!".

Incredibly lame.
 

DarkUnderlord

Professional Throne Sitter
Staff Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2002
Messages
28,357
I'll see if I can't do a match against you guys tomorrow and see what happens. After watching SlavemasterT's replay, I'll be quite happy to play someone other than Metallix.
 
Joined
Feb 19, 2005
Messages
4,575
Strap Yourselves In Codex+ Now Streaming!
"The only question is, will Relic ever learn how to properly balance a real-time strategy game?"


I'd also add the question "Will Relic ever learn to design a challenging Singeplayer Campaign which does not only consist of using your endless recources to purge the map from a passive enemy"

The answer to both is no.
 
Joined
Feb 19, 2005
Messages
4,575
Strap Yourselves In Codex+ Now Streaming!
DarkUnderlord said:
UPDATE: I now wish I'd have finished the single player campaign before writing my review. It would've given me another two paragraph's of things to complain about at least.

For starters, it's completely lacking in any challenge what-so-ever. The last mission in fact is so easy that you can kill the Big Bad Foozle with the units you're given from the start! More than that, it's one of those lame "there's a sequel" endings. Instead of killing the Foozle and celebrating and yay etc... It ends like one of those bad movies which doesn't actually end but instead wants you to now go and wait for the sequel. See, you don't actually kill the Foozle in mission 11 (yes, only 11 single player "walk in the park" missions), you "release it" and then the Foozle is all nice and says "I could kill you know but I won't LAWLZ becoz then there'd be no sequels!".

Incredibly lame.

Its a general relic problem. Its even worse in Company of Heroes. The campaign is so fucking boring and easy even on the highest level that if fucking hurts.

They manage to take out every last bit of challenge from the missions by giving you endless troops and recourcess, while the enemy is passive and never actually threats your base, or even attacks you at all except from a few scripted events.

Capturing a hill is not really much fun if you could loose 10.000 of your own units to kill one enemy unit provided you have much time.
Its get a bit more challenging with the bonus challenges (completing a mission in 30 minutes etc.), but these vary in difficulty and are not mandatory to succeed even on "expert"

Boooooooooooooooring.
 

WhiskeyWolf

RPG Codex Polish Car Thief
Staff Member
Joined
Nov 4, 2007
Messages
14,793
You are nothing compared to Starcraft.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom