Warhammer: Dawn of War sucks

[DarkUnderlord]

First off, there are zones of control. You can only build within one of these areas.

Build times are decreased with more builders and Eldar can put up webway portals anywhere. hmm possible something to cross reference with your comments about every race being the same

Notice how the game still revolves around zones of control?

And another game this morning. I'm finding that in Dawn of War there's a point where you've won or lost even before it's all over. I encounter the God-like Enemy Force Commander and send my own Force Commander and a Marine squad after him, along with 4 full groups of scouts. The enemy only has scouts at this stage. His Force Commander was wounded but he still took out mine first. Once my Force Commander was gone, it didn't matter how tough those Marines were, the god-like enemy Force Commander with 2 millimetres on his health bar left took them out without getting scratched. Now normally, I'd be dead because all he'd have to do aftr that is send his Force Commander into my base. It wouldn't matter what I could build, nothing can take out the Force Commander. Thankfully the AI didn't though so I had time to get another Force Commander and a bunch of Scouts. I send them down and kill their Force Commander. That's it, I've won. Why? Because now my God-like Force Commander can pummel everything in his base wihtout getting scratched. The enemy was still building Marine units that popped out but I took care of them as if they weren't there. I took out the barracks (he was Space Marine too) and then spent the next ten minutes attacking his stronghold because for some reason, someone decided it'd be fun to make a stronghold take forever to destroy (pity turrets or listening posts aren't that tough!). During this time Scout units keep popping out and getting cut down until eventually, after a long, long time the stronghold is destroyed. I win, yay. Point is, I lost the minute my Force Commander was killed but thanks to some dumb AI, I wasn't attacked so I could easily kill his weakened Force Commander with my new one and win. It didn't matter what defenses he had, what buildings he had or how many troops he had. The fact that I had a god-like Force Commander and he didn't ensured my victory. That's piss-poor game design right there.

Relic said repeatedly that the game was built with discouraging turtling in minds THE EVIL CUNTS!

They could've built a game which meant taking out turtles required strategy. That's my point though, it doesn't. I can send one Squad of Space Marines (the basic military unit) at a fortified listening post and take it out WITHOUT ANY PROBLEMS WHAT-SO-EVER. My Space Marines walk through the defenses as if they weren't even there. Send over a Force Commander over as well and it's even easier.

You can't multi-task, this is the games fault how?

There's no command that finds the "nearest build unit". The . hotkey only cycles through them in the order they were built. When you've got a game that involves you sending out units every which way, litle things like that can help make it more fun rather than map scavenging. If I'm being attacked, then I'm too concerned with clicking on Squads and re-inforcing them than I am with capturing control points which the PC is doing quite happily all at once, attacking me and taking my control points and attacking my Scouts with his Scouts.

The really bad thing though, is that there's no alternative strategies.

Well given that your playing as space marines its not particularly suprising that your troops are space marines. But that said there is plenty of tactical variation.

EG. Assualt marines have jump packs and melta-bombs, jump over past the enemies retarded attempt to turtle, use the melta bombs to destroy key-structure, then use the orbital relay to deep-strike with terminators and dreadnaughts.[/quote]
To deep strike you need an Orbital Relay. By then, I've already got 4 or 5 Predator tanks. Why bother deep striking when I can walk all over him anyway? Because defenses are useless, it's not like I have to actually bother getting around them or coming up with a strategy to take them out. I can just send in Space Marines and a tank and keep moving. And why bother with using meta-bombs to destroy a key structure? Again, by the time I'm that far in the game, I've got tanks and I'm walking all over him. As each new unit he's building pops out, it gets cut down in seconds because it doesn't have a chance to re-inforce. If I remember rightly, deep-striking also requires you to 'see' that part of that map (IE: no fog of war) meaning you have a unit there. Typically I don't bother with skull probes because again, by then I've got tanks and I'm walking all over him (and skull probes die quicker than what they're worth). I can 'see' that part of the map because I've got a bunch of tanks there and am already kicking his arse. In other words, the game is already over.

So the thrust of your complaints are that you suck at multi-tasking and are grumpy that the AI isn't just sitting there passively letting you turtle up and swamp them.

No, the thrust of my complaints are that there's no real alternative strategy. I'm talking a Terran sends over 12 Battlecruisers, you freeze 4 of them and then psi-storm the rest into destruction with just a handful of Templars. You then drop Reavers into his base to take out his economy and send some more to take out the defenses out the front because they actually pose a threat.

In Dawn of War it's he sends over his Force Commander -> You're screwed because your Force Commander was out in the field on the way to his base as you were thinking you'd run into his Commander along the way OR his Force Commander is being moved around with a group of Scouts taking over control points, you try and intercept but your Force Commander is elsewhere so there's point even trying. You spend most of your time running away from every force you encounter because he's got his Force Commander there and you haven't.

In Starcraft, I can send an attack force into your base and if you atack my base at the same time, my defenses with a newly built re-inforcements can actually hold you off long enough for me to send my army back that way and try and take you out. In DoW, if you leave any units behind, it means your attack force is going to be destroyed for starters and as a follow-up, your useless defending group are going to be walked all over. There's no give and take. There's no "ouch, almost lost that one but I can rebuild quickly and hold out a bit longer". No, it's all-over.

In Dawn of War it's build units -> Send them to enemy's base -> Win / Lose (Depending on who's Force Commander / Invincible God-like units die first).

So far, I'm getting told I'm right. Turrets suck and aren't worth building. They're only going to "tip the balance" if you've got your entire army back at base defending it (God forbid you be out attacking someone else at the time). God-like units can take out anything in their path without breaking a sweat unless your own God-like unit is there. If your God-like unit dies first, you're dead because those units really are God-like.

 

[psycojester]

By then, I've already got 4 or 5 Predator tanks. Why bother deep striking when I can walk all over him anyway?

Predators have lascannons and aren't overly effective against infantry, give your marines rocket launchers or use assault marine melta-bombs, or you could try one of the other races.

I seriously can't understand what happened with your force commander are we playing the same game here? Yes the commanders are strong, but their not the indestructible harvengers of doom which you seem to believe they are.

Notice how the game still revolves around zones of control?

You never said that to be a problem previously, i personally like the mechanic, it encourages aggressive gameplay.

That's my point though, it doesn't. I can send one Squad of Space Marines (the basic military unit) at a fortified listening post and take it out WITHOUT ANY PROBLEMS WHAT-SO-EVER.

Call me crazy but that sounds like an attempt to get you to use some fucking troops to defend the listening posts.

If I'm being attacked, then I'm too concerned with clicking on Squads and re-inforcing them than I am with capturing control points.

Fair enough, but you might like to consider right-clicking the reinforce button (auto-reinforce)

 

[DarkUnderlord]

I seriously can't understand what happened with your force commander are we playing the same game here? Yes the commanders are strong, but their not the indestructible harvengers of doom which you seem to believe they are.

I'm willing to bet it's the 300 MB patch I have to download (which I've avoided because it's a 300 MB patch and I didn't think the game would be that much more balanced as a result - typically patches are meant to fix bugs, not gameplay). Seriously, if the patch changes that much, I might actually start to think that this game doesn't suck.

 

[Keender_surprise]

"His Force Commander was wounded but he still took out mine first. Once my Force Commander was gone, it didn't matter how tough those Marines were, the god-like enemy Force Commander with 2 millimetres on his health bar left took them out without getting scratched."

You may or may not have noticed that units can fire whilst on the run in DoW. If you're facing a unit that is exceptionally strong in melee combat, then 'dance' your units around it. That is, say in the situation you just mentioned, you have two scout squads or even better, a scout squad and a tactical marine squad. They can fire whilst on the move. The Force Commander is a hero unit but is only lethal when engaged in melee. You should be able to figure the rest out.

"Even with an impressive 4 rocket launchers, a single Predator tank (with laser canons) seems to have no difficulty taking out a squad of Marines without any scratches."

Firstly, there's an upgrade in the armoury come tier 2 that increases the accuracy and damage of your tactical marines. Secondly, as you may or may not have noticed with heavy bolters, some specialist ranged weapons in DoW can fire further than the units carrying them can see into the fog of war. This is the case with marine missile launchers. So combine this ranged advantage with scouts, who can be cloaked with invisibility following an upgrade from your headquarters. If you see a tank coming closer, move your marines away and keep that tank within sight of your cloaked scouts. Trust me, when you've actually tested the maximum range of missile launchers using cloaked scouts as spotters, you'll know what I'm getting at.

 

[Sovard]

(...typically patches are meant to fix bugs, not gameplay). Seriously, if the patch changes that much, I might actually start to think that this game doesn't suck.

That explains everything. Yeah.

From when I played the beta multiplayer of it, it's an entirely new game. They have done immense amounts of changes to units/effectiveness (depending on how old your version is, especially.)

Turrets aren't really meant to beat an end game attack force. They are only there to prevent early losses and rush tactics. They are especially useful for races like Imperial Guard who can get creamed in the starter stages. It's really more of a matter of buying yourself enough time to counterattack. I have been in dire situations where static defense tied up the enemy long enough for me to push them back- winning in the end.

It's not the big seesaw you make it out to be, you're just being very critical/cynical for some reason.

 

[kingcomrade]

Dawn of War isn't a balanced game. It just isn't. I like playing it, though. I downloaded Dark Crusade because I just bought Winter Assault for real and I'll be damned if I'm shelling out more money. The Necrons are so unbalanced it's unbelieveable, and the Tau are very weak because of their expensive vulnerable detectors and lack of turrets.

I wouldn't put too much faith in Supreme Commander or Call of the Band of the Company of the Brothers of the Heroes of Duty of our Fathers if you're looking for balance, either. Neither is going to be a Starcraft balance which is why I don't plan on playing anything online.

I like it because I'm a Warhammer40k fan and because it's an okay game to sit down and play.

 

[DarkUnderlord]

When it comes to RTS games, kingcomrade and I agree. That's scary in'nit? I DL'd and installed patches 1.41 -> 1.51 yesterday and played a few games. I wanted to play a few more before judging it again but 'eh. In those that I played (two 1 on 1 matches) it still boiled down to taking out the enemy's Force Commander first and then winning. I have to admit things are a *little* better with the patches. The few turrets I thought I'd test out seemed to be some-what marginally better and Marines did take down the Force Commander a bit quicker but once that was done, I just had to pull mine back a bit to heal, while I sent the boys in to clean up. The AI kept popping out squad after squad but they were all cut down in a few seconds without much worry.

I think because you re-inforce squads, as opposed to building units one by one, loses are either marginal or devastating. There is no inbetween. There is no "Wow, I may have won but I've only got a 3rd of my force left, all he needs to do is send a few more guys over and my attacking force is gone". Instead, I can send over two squads of Marines and lose half my force for example but because I still have the squad, I can re-inforce them where-as the enemy loses a squad and is toast. By the time he gets a replacement squad of a lousy 4 blokes, I've reinforced both my squads on the battlefield, while I was attacking him. Again, compare that to Starcraft where if I lose half my Marines, that's a pretty big blow as they need to be re-built back at base and then moved out. As kingcomrade said, it is fun (Space Marines totally kick arse and they look so much more awesome in DoW than they do in SC) but the battles are a little too black and white for my tastes.

All in all, it's a fun game and I'll certainly keep playing it but it's a love-hate relationship. I'm totally writing a TCancer review of DoW though. Just think how much fun the feedback is going to be.

 

[z3r'0']

Throwing my two cents in here. I'd say I agree with DU.

DoW doesn't have the depth for there to be viable strategies. The first encounter nearly always determines the final outcome.
Its like the U.S. marines' R.O.F. --> Rate of Fire.
Massive firepower > anything else.

To reiterate KC. The game is so imbalanced its just maddening.
When an Orc- (which I incidentally play) player has to be twice as good as his competitor
playing SM or Choas only to survive; you know there's some issues.

Its a good game, just with flaws.
Without rigorously releasing balance patches based on feedback, nevermind having seven races in the mix. I doubt Relic will balance the game anytime soon.

 

[Ryuken]

I wouldn't put too much faith in Supreme Commander or Call of the Band of the Company of the Brothers of the Heroes of Duty of our Fathers if you're looking for balance, either. Neither is going to be a Starcraft balance which is why I don't plan on playing anything online.

You've played them both or are you just shelling out at THQ-strategy games, one of which isn't even released and thus finished/balanced yet?

And I believe that disliking the balance of a game but at the same time enjoying the same game while playing doesn't mean it "sucks" (surprise, surprise, yet another exaggerated thread title). Relic has been releasing patches like hell for over the past few years, too bad their top-championship players/testers can't get everything to work as balanced as one would hope. It's not like they're not trying or not taking feedback at all if you ask me.

 

[kingcomrade]

I haven't played Supreme Commander but I've played Total Annnihilation. And Supreme Commander is not a THQ game.

Dawn of War and Band of Company of Heroic Brothers are not balanced. I mean, without an essay-length exposition I don't know how to make it any more clear than that.

 

[Ryuken]

I haven't played Supreme Commander but I've played Total Annnihilation. And Supreme Commander is not a THQ game.

It is, just as DoW and CoH. THQ publishes them all three, pays the developer-cheques and has the final word on it. With SupCom they only don't own the IP I think, but that's all there's to it. They even put a promo-image of SupCom in the DC-manual. SupCom has TA in it clearly, but that doesn't mean it can't be balanced.

Dawn of War and Band of Company of Heroic Brothers are not balanced. I mean, without an essay-length exposition I don't know how to make it any more clear than that.

I am not saying they are balanced in a perfect way, just stating that they don't necessarily suck because of that or that Relic won't stop with patching.

 

[kingcomrade]

THQ publishes them all three, pays the developer-cheques and has the final word on it. With SupCom they only don't own the IP I think, but that's all there's to it.

In any case Supreme Commander isn't being made by the same studio that made Dawn of War and Call of Heroes so I don't see your point. Dawn of War and Company of Honor are Relic games (the people who made Homeworld). I wouldn't really call them a THQ game in the first place, since THQ is just the company the copies the disks and ships off the boxes.

SupCom has TA in it clearly, but that doesn't mean it can't be balanced.

And just because a Jew-bus with a heavily laden Muslim on board just exploded doesn't mean it must be terrorism.

 

[Ryuken]

THQ publishes them all three, pays the developer-cheques and has the final word on it. With SupCom they only don't own the IP I think, but that's all there's to it.

In any case Supreme Commander isn't being made by the same studio that made Dawn of War and Call of Heroes so I don't see your point. Dawn of War and Company of Honor are Relic games (the people who made Homeworld). I wouldn't really call them a THQ game in the first place, since THQ is just the company the copies the disks and ships off the boxes.

... and which owns Relic completely, gives the green light/pays for all further updates that might imply balance fixes for DoW, CoH and maybe in the future SupCom (if it needs any). But well, I get the message, you didn't target these games because they're funded/produced by THQ, apparently you're just drawing conclusions based on an old, supposedly heavily broken rts-classic made by a part of the team behind SupCom and a recent WWII rts which is getting a new balance patch soon. I think it wouldn't be unreasonable to think that Dark Crusade will get a patch either.

SupCom has TA in it clearly, but that doesn't mean it can't be balanced.

And just because a Jew-bus with a heavily laden Muslim on board just exploded doesn't mean it must be terrorism.

They always have a tendency to explode if you ask me. So, the only rts-game that might ever become "balanced" again from the start can only be StarCraft II then? Gas Powered Games ain't Cavedog you know (if the latter made mistakes with TA in the first place), and Blizzard isn't the exact same company anymore as it was during the SC-days either. Otherwise put: you might want to wait till there is a final release or a next patch (which seems to be as heavily anticipated nowadays as a full game, but that's just times changing).

 

[kingcomrade]

and which owns Relic completely

Yes, they own Relic. What has that got to do with anything? Does that mean the same team that worked on Company of Brothers is the same one that is workingo n Supreme Commander? If the answer is no, then again what is your point? The company THQ does not design the games.

So, the only rts-game that might ever become "balanced" again from the start can only be StarCraft II then?

All squares are rectangles, does that mean all rectangles are squares? To give you an answer to your question, yes Starcraft II has a much better chance of being balanced than any other RTS game coming out in the future because its producer has a track record of being very good at balancing games.

Gas Powered Games ain't Cavedog you know

I know (though both share some of the same staff and the same lead designer), but SC is pretty plainly the sequel to Total Annihlation and from the videos and such that I've seen it looks true enough.

 

[Ryuken]

Which still doesn't mean it can't be balanced. Cavedog got their exodus soon enough, even Taylor left before the second TA-expansion but that didn't exactly made TA unbalanced, if it ever was. GPG has as much chance to balance their game as anyone else.

As for THQ; without their approval (they are like, producing everything you know), the likes of DoW, CoH and in the future SupCom if it isn't balanced from the start, won't get much future updates. You seem to argue that the designers have to be competent in the first place but if they don't get the time and money to balance everything there can't even be a valid discussion about the design-skills, even SC apparently needed its fair share of patches over the years to keep standing where it is now.

And @ StarCraft II: if they have to bring in some hotshot from Generals and BfME, then I think something has changed at Blizzard, no? Or has WarCraft III always been perfectly balanced too?

 

[kingcomrade]

Which still doesn't mean it can't be balanced

Strange, I seem to remember addressing this already. Here it is again: Yes, there is a chance that it might be balanced. On the other hand, some people (the people who aren't braindead) are capable of looking at a studio, checking out their track record, and making educated guesses about what is most likely to happen in the future.

Tell me, is Fallout 3 going to be worthy of the Fallout name? Is it going to be an RPG in the vein of the old Fallouts?

As for THQ. etc

And? Great, THQ funds them, this is established information. THQ does not design the game. They do not balance the game.

And @ StarCraft II: if they have to bring in some hotshot from Generals and BfME, then I think something has changed at Blizzard, no?

And? Are you telling me they are no longer the same corporate identity, that even though their games, despire fluxuations in the staff, have been fairly consistent this is no longer going to be so?

Or has WarCraft III always been perfectly balanced too?

Better balanced than any other game of its generation.


A question for anyone else:
Is the concepts I'm talking about obscure and impossible to understand, or is it just Ryuken who is having a problem?

 

[DarkUnderlord]

It's Ryuken. Dawn of War isn't balanced, therefore it sucks. I've finally lost all heart to play it after constantly walking all over the PC with a Predator tank or two. It's fun watching the explosions and all but the minute I see the enemy army isn't at its base (my cloaked Scouts have found it on the other side of the map, attacking someone else), I know I'm about to take him out, no question. That's how OMFG AWESUM (read: too powerful) Predator tanks are.

In other news, DoW does have mod tools which let you tweak the units yourself... And from a quick half-hour muck around this morning, it looks like it's going to be pretty easy to balance the game how I want it.

 

[Ryuken]

Which still doesn't mean it can't be balanced

Strange, I seem to remember addressing this already. Here it is again: Yes, there is a chance that it might be balanced.

First time you admit that though, it's about time you start realising other devs than Blizz might get it right too. And for the third reply in a row or so you are still avoiding to discuss the "balancing problems" of TA, which seem to be your main reason for labelling SupCom as an imbalanced game even before it's released.

On the other hand, some people (the people who aren't braindead) are capable of looking at a studio, checking out their track record, and making educated guesses about what is most likely to happen in the future.

Tell me, is Fallout 3 going to be worthy of the Fallout name? Is it going to be an RPG in the vein of the old Fallouts?

Probably not, but then again, the rpg-landscape and the rpg-developers we loved are pretty much all completely dead, not exactly the kind of thing that's happening in the rts-genre. If Bethesda would still be like after Daggerfall, who knows they might have been up to it? Most studios tend to change direction all the time though, for the better and for the worse, you have to be braindead to not understand that.

And does Fallout suck because some weapons are overpowered or the AI ain't that great? Didn't think so either.

As for THQ. etc

And? Great, THQ funds them, this is established information. THQ does not design the game. They do not balance the game.

Without money/approval you can't even start completing a gamedesign, after release or not. If those testers (top players, even from other rts-ladders) were given enough time and money, why shouldn't they be as able as the untouchables from Blizzard to balance things?

And @ StarCraft II: if they have to bring in some hotshot from Generals and BfME, then I think something has changed at Blizzard, no?

And? Are you telling me they are no longer the same corporate identity, that even though their games, despire fluxuations in the staff, have been fairly consistent this is no longer going to be so?

If comparing "rpg's" to rts's is still allowed, how in the nine hells has WoW been "consistent"? Talking about a balance-job still to be done and which seems to overshadow Blizzard more and more. WoW didn't go out completely balanced or bugfree because VU wanted to cash in for the holidays. What's going to prevent them from doing that when SCII is coming out? An army of crazy Koreans?

Or has WarCraft III always been perfectly balanced too?

Better balanced than any other game of its generation.

Maybe, although Battle Realms got things right too if you ask me. And even then, better balanced as StarCraft?

A question for anyone else:
Is the concepts I'm talking about obscure and impossible to understand, or is it just Ryuken who is having a problem?

Change that name to kingcomrade and we might be getting somewhere.

It's Ryuken. Dawn of War isn't balanced, therefore it sucks. I've finally lost all heart to play it after constantly walking all over the PC with a Predator tank or two. It's fun watching the explosions and all but the minute I see the enemy army isn't at its base (my cloaked Scouts have found it on the other side of the map, attacking someone else), I know I'm about to take him out, no question. That's how OMFG AWESUM (read: too powerful) Predator tanks are.

In other news, DoW does have mod tools which let you tweak the units yourself... And from a quick half-hour muck around this morning, it looks like it's going to be pretty easy to balance the game how I want it.

Someone woke up from a winter sleep, there have been mods like that from the very beginning you know, not exactly "news". And you succeed in contradicting yourself in this thread several times: "Dawn of War sucks because it's not balanced and I can't rely on turrets", "hmm, other people seem to handle tanks pretty well despite my attempts", "it's a fun game", "gotta stick with kingcomrade though, it sucks", "but ooh, I can mod it so maybe..." and so on and so on. DoW isn't perfectly balanced now (nothing seems to beat Necrons yeah, not even other AI's in a skirmish game) but it's a great game and I keep enjoying it despite the flaws. Be my guest to keep discussing the balance act, but if you find whining about that (on this forum, the most likely place where every Relic-dev wants to hear your opinion) to be more important than playing, then yeah, better stick to SC then.

 

[DarkUnderlord]

Someone woke up from a winter sleep, there have been mods like that from the very beginning you know, not exactly "news".

Good thing I didn't make it a news item then, huh?

And you succeed in contradicting yourself in this thread several times: "Dawn of War sucks because it's not balanced and I can't rely on turrets", "hmm, other people seem to handle tanks pretty well despite my attempts", "it's a fun game", "gotta stick with kingcomrade though, it sucks", "but ooh, I can mod it so maybe..." and so on and so on.

Seeing as you can't seem to handle anything more than a one page thread, let's re-cap.

Dawn of War sucks because:

• Can only build within zones of control.
• Building defenses suck (as in, there are none).
• No alternative strategies (beyond build tanks and win)
• God-like units.
• Other races all boil down to "Build most awesome unit you have and win".
• It's a nice game with pretty graphics and a great atmosphere but which after a few games of play, you realise sucks.

DoW isn't perfectly balanced now

Wait? Isn't that what I've been saying?

By the way, Starcraft seemed fine on the day of release. Brood of War made it even better. Sure, there have been patches just the same as Dawn of War but it was almost perfect on day one. It wasn't a case that 2 years later they're still trying to get it right.

but it's a great game and I keep enjoying it despite the flaws

Good for you. Feel free to go on about how AWESUM teh grafficks are while the rest of us talk about actual game-play.

Be my guest to keep discussing the balance act

Oh well, now that I have your permission then...

but if you find whining about that (on this forum, the most likely place where every Relic-dev wants to hear your opinion)

I made a post in a forum about strategy games sharing my opinion about a reasonably new RTS. Get over yourself.

to be more important than playing, then yeah, better stick to SC then.

Thank you for admitting that Starcraft is a much better game.

Oh and in other "news", what happens when the AI tries to think:

 

[psycojester]

In summation

Darkunderlord posts a few arguments which are either disproven or straw-men so everybody else looses.

BTW have you tried playing against anybody online or are you just playing against the skirmish AI and then whining about build tanks and win?

 

[DarkUnderlord]

Darkunderlord posts a few arguments which are either disproven or straw-men so everybody else looses.

Interesting, I posted a few arguments about the game being hideously unbalanced and it seems everyone agrees with me. Even the people who insist that because it's Warhammer, the game must be AWSUM eventually admitted that yeah, game balance sucks. BUT IT WILL GET BETTER HONEST!

BTW have you tried playing against anybody online or are you just playing against the skirmish AI and then whining about build tanks and win?

I've played a few games. I got confused though. In the end I wasn't sure whether I was playing a supposedly real-time strategy game or "Britney's Dance Beat" what with all the DANCE DANCE DANCE going on.

Oh and it's still whomever wins the first battle wins the game (or in multiple player games, whomever loses the first battle may as well give up) and always attack with your entire army. More units than your enemy = You win. There's none of the fun finesse that exists in Starcraft (which is unfortuately, over-run by Koreans now). No Reaver-drops or cloaked units for those demoralising but fun attacks. No wall of Siege Tanks behind a few Bunkers that makes you think about how you're going to break-through them. No laughing off a Zerg (or even full-fledged Protoss Carrier) attack with a mere handful of Templars casting Psionic Storm. It's all or nothing and if your army's out in the field and an enemy walks into your base, you're screwed. Given your entire army will be out in the field if you're attacking someone else, that's more often than not.

 

[xemous]

I just wanna pimp starcraft up in this, G men. Sallys up, laters.

I'd hit that shit, f`oath.

 

[Ryuken]

Someone woke up from a winter sleep, there have been mods like that from the very beginning you know, not exactly "news".

Good thing I didn't make it a news item then, huh?

You were acting like no-one else ever noticed it.

And you succeed in contradicting yourself in this thread several times: "Dawn of War sucks because it's not balanced and I can't rely on turrets", "hmm, other people seem to handle tanks pretty well despite my attempts", "it's a fun game", "gotta stick with kingcomrade though, it sucks", "but ooh, I can mod it so maybe..." and so on and so on.

Seeing as you can't seem to handle anything more than a one page thread, let's re-cap.

Dawn of War sucks because:

• Can only build within zones of control.
• Building defenses suck (as in, there are none).
• No alternative strategies (beyond build tanks and win)
• God-like units.
• Other races all boil down to "Build most awesome unit you have and win".
• It's a nice game with pretty graphics and a great atmosphere but which after a few games of play, you realise sucks.

/

DoW isn't perfectly balanced now

Wait? Isn't that what I've been saying?

Who said otherwise in this thread? The real matter at hand is why the hell you would label it as a sucky game because of that and that alone. I think enough people have disproven your exaggerated imba-theories with their own experiences (on the first page already, so much for the ability of even handling a one page-thread), no-one ever said DoW is perfectly balanced but the only person saying that only tanks will win a DoW-game, that turrets have no use whatsoever, that only being able to build in zones of control is hampering the fun/balance and that every race plays exactly the same, is you.

By the way, Starcraft seemed fine on the day of release. Brood of War made it even better. Sure, there have been patches just the same as Dawn of War but it was almost perfect on day one. It wasn't a case that 2 years later they're still trying to get it right.

So? They should stop now because they'll never reach the same status as SC? Or wait, I guess you will save Relic with yer ultimate balance-patch, rather than the folks who of course know nothing about balance and who made it a game about simply winning the tank-techrace because that's what they obviously love to play all the time if you look at their credentials.

but it's a great game and I keep enjoying it despite the flaws

Good for you. Feel free to go on about how AWESUM teh grafficks are while the rest of us talk about actual game-play.

I never said anything about graphics in this whole thread, they are nice surely, but I think a lot of people are getting the impression you are "actually" playing a whole kind of different Dawn of War than they're used to.

Be my guest to keep discussing the balance act

Oh well, now that I have your permission then...

but if you find whining about that (on this forum, the most likely place where every Relic-dev wants to hear your opinion)

I made a post in a forum about strategy games sharing my opinion about a reasonably new RTS. Get over yourself.

The game is more than two years old, I suspect you woke up again or forgot what you just said? There is nothing wrong with sharing an opinion of a game, not even an old one, as long as your arguements make at least a little sense. Again, no-one'll deny it's not balanced (yet) but it just doesn't seem that you picked the right reasons for labelling it like that while at the same time calling it a sucky game.

to be more important than playing, then yeah, better stick to SC then.

Thank you for admitting that Starcraft is a much better game.

No, I said you better stick to it. You clearly have problems with the skirmish option of other real-time strategy games because of SC's online supremacy. Or wait, you tried online play it seems but can't handle the dancing/retreating? Then it's not the game for you apparently, if you are already giving up because of that.

@xemous: at least something of excitement in this thread.

 

[CrusaderTemplar]

What AI difficulty were you playing against? Easy? Standard? Hard? Insane?

 

[crufty]

I didn't like DoW because I didn't like how the squads just sat there blazing away at each other--it really bugged me. While I enjoyed the demo, it's just not the game for me.

I would like to see an Epic version of DoW. That's what I really, really want. Not just 10's of guard wandering around, but hundreds, w/scattered titan shots wreaking havoc, space machines jumping in their flying craft and getting shot down hexes away from their landing point. A turn based 3d final liberation.

DU, if you have a Wh40k itch to scratch, give Final Liberation a shot. It may be a bit dated, but I preferred it's strategy element to DoW.