Its not really an RTS. Its more likea an RTT game. As in Real Time Tactics. You have to capture and hold specific points on the battlefield to gain resources to build units. You have 2 different resouce points (again like Starcraft) and victory points that count towards victory. (Battlefield style)

So yes. You can outbuild and outmass your enemy but you have to be aggresive to do it. Just like expaning your base in Starcraft.

And its not about spamming powers....Its about combining different troops to counter enemy threats. Yes units have special abilites and powers, but they are only useful in certain tactical situations. Again...just like Starcraft.

Most people who have tried the multiplayer have liked it immensely. It eliminates the need to multitask and it doent require the insane ammount of APM just to be competitive. It does require you to think things through though.

I like Starcraft just fine. In fact I think its the greatest multiplayer strategy game ever. But DOW2 is something different and is brilliant in its own right.

So what Dr. D. Schreber is actually saying is that it's all micro and you don't have the option to pursue victory from a macro POV of outbuilding and amassing more troops than your enemy?

Sorry...but that sounds like gutted RTS to me. Which is exactly the impression I got of the game from playing the single player missions.

Spamming powers doesn't do it for me.

Dr. D. Schreber wrote on Sep 16, 2010, 18:18:

Nope, that's all there. Again, it's no less complex than any "traditional" RTS, just with more variety between races and minus the daft micromanaging.

/RTS Nerd rant.

Arguably, it's a LOT less complex than practically any other RTS out there. Instead of having to deal with economy and your base and production of new units, you just walk your few squads around and spam their powers on enemy units. I get that a lot of people like this style of gameplay, it's probably why DotA, League of Legends, Heroes of Newerth, those micro ONLY games are so popular. A lot of people don't want to be bothered with bases.

Also micro, in RTS context, usually refers to actual control of the units, as opposed to macro, which refers to economy, base building, etc.

RTS nerd rant./

Slashman wrote on Sep 16, 2010, 18:08:
Also, if there is no base building and researching, doesn't that eliminate several strategies that are RTS staples right there? Like actually out-building or overwhelming your foe? Or winning in terms of disposable resources etc?

Nope, that's all there. Again, it's no less complex than any "traditional" RTS, just with more variety between races and minus the daft micromanaging.

Dr. D. Schreber wrote on Sep 16, 2010, 03:48:
Multiplayer gives you a base, and all building is done from there. There are no separate troop-making or research-...researching buildings and the like.

Not that this actually makes the game an easy-button like everyone who hasn't played it likes to pretend they know. Multiplayer is easily as complex a dance as Starcraft, but with more variety between races and without the daft micro-managing.

I bought the THQ pack a while back and have played several single player missions. So far I am quite unimpressed. I haven't tried multiplayer for the simple reason that, if single player seems boring...then how would multiplayer be much better?

I may be wrong and need to give the game another try...but I found the pseudo RPG loot hunting and upgrading in the single player to be not my thing.

Also, if there is no base building and researching, doesn't that eliminate several strategies that are RTS staples right there? Like actually out-building or overwhelming your foe? Or winning in terms of disposable resources etc?

The biggest problem with DoW2, at least to me and other people who loved DoW1, was that initially Relic kept claiming they were going to make DoW2 on a much larger scale than the first game, more fitting to the table top game, etc.

That was their reasoning on their forums back in the day for NOT including Tyranids in DoW1, the engine didn't allow for enough units. So all the DoW1 people were overjoyed early on, DoW2 was going to be this massive sequel with really huge armies, hundreds if not thousands of tyranids, etc.

Then... we get DoW2, the watered down, no real building, few squads, ONE hero, GFWL infected mess. Thanks, Relic. At least they got the message this time around that GFWL is garbage, maybe by DoW3 they will make good on their original promises.

Company of Heroes' success ruined Relic as a game developer. The Cover system, the relatively harder counters compared to DoW1, the relatively much higher hp per unit, etc. The sad thing is, DoW2 probably outsold DoW1 so much they will never go back to their original Homeworld/DoW1 style.

And then there is Warhammer 40k:Space Marine... single unit Wh40k.

Jerykk wrote on Sep 16, 2010, 00:34:

Apparently building a base and researching your own upgrades and units is too tough for the 'modern' RTS crowd to bother with.

Doesn't multiplayer have all that stuff?

No....Dow2 had unique gameplay that focused mostly on the tactical combat. SImilar to company of heroes. It was actually a brilliant gem of a game that didnt require an APM of 250 to be competitive.

Think of it as the anti-Starcraft game Its actually quite deep even though on the surface it appears simple to get into.

I really really got into it, but the GFWL interface and matchmaking was so horrible that I gave up on it since it took me longer to find matches than to actually play them.

Will be watching this...

Need to hear that Arkham City will drop GFWL now... not getting my hopes up though

Multiplayer gives you a base, and all building is done from there. There are no separate troop-making or research-...researching buildings and the like.

Not that this actually makes the game an easy-button like everyone who hasn't played it likes to pretend they know. Multiplayer is easily as complex a dance as Starcraft, but with more variety between races and without the daft micro-managing.

Jerykk wrote on Sep 16, 2010, 00:34:

Apparently building a base and researching your own upgrades and units is too tough for the 'modern' RTS crowd to bother with.

Doesn't multiplayer have all that stuff?

Thats what I hear. Though Im not interested in MP myself. I might try the CO-OP, though Im not sure if its base building or not as well.

Apparently building a base and researching your own upgrades and units is too tough for the 'modern' RTS crowd to bother with.

Doesn't multiplayer have all that stuff?

Wolfen wrote on Sep 15, 2010, 22:15:
So not sure if this was brought up since I havnt paid attention to this game yet. Does it have good old building of structures and resourcing and so on? Or is it another point and click 4 man adventure romp? If not I probably wont get it. I beat 40k 2, and while its a solid game, it just wasnt my thing.

Apparently building a base and researching your own upgrades and units is too tough for the 'modern' RTS crowd to bother with.

I just found DOW 2 to be pretty underwhelming. If you take out most of the 'strategy' from an RTS game...what exactly is left?

Excellent, I hate windows live. Its caused me so many problems, freezes, made games unplayable, requires many restarts for updates (both game and computer) etc.

http://www.bluesnews.com/s/113263/top-games-for-windows-live-titles
One of the recent lists of top windows live games. DoW is #2, and its sequel is going for steam instead. #3 is fallout 3 and its sequel is going steam instead. GTA 4, well thats rockstar, they will probably stay live, I doubt they care about PC users all that much anymore. They didn't optmize the graphics for the game, they required PC users to install like 4 pieces of crap to run the game when it first sold at retail (they eventually changed the social club crap to be optional IF you didn't want to use its features), and they like to make PC users wait a year or more for GTA games (its been the same since GTA 3 as I recall). So I don't expect rockstar to change.
Still though, 2 out of the 3 top games on Live, the publishers are doing the sequels on steam. And MW2 being on steam is a good huge release valve can point to as being a success when they sell steam to customers. GfWL is going to quickly become irrelevant in PC games if MS doesn't step up and/or bribe game companies.

Good news for a multiplayer-focused title... wish singleplayer didn't have to register with Steam though.

Jerykk wrote on Sep 15, 2010, 23:23:

And please allow people to earn xp playing custom games. I don't care if the matchmaking improves a ton with the new system, just let us play the game and earn xp as we play. track 2 seperate sets of xp if you must so people earning xp playing custom games don't see those rewards in ranked games if you must....

Wait, DoW2 has grinding in multiplayer too? I thought that was limited to single-player. Forcing players to grind and unlock new units, abilities or structures in a competitive multiplayer RTS is ridiculous.

It's aesthetic only...

And please allow people to earn xp playing custom games. I don't care if the matchmaking improves a ton with the new system, just let us play the game and earn xp as we play. track 2 seperate sets of xp if you must so people earning xp playing custom games don't see those rewards in ranked games if you must....

Wait, DoW2 has grinding in multiplayer too? I thought that was limited to single-player. Forcing players to grind and unlock new units, abilities or structures in a competitive multiplayer RTS is ridiculous.

Unpopular, and deservedly so. There's just no reason for it at all.

Direct2Drive has been quietly rolling out there own version of a gaming platform (actually Gamespy is, since it's called Gamespy Comrade), but it's already WAY better than GFWL. And, best of all, it's completely optional.

Space Marine != Dawn of War

This was already announced a few days back.

http://www.bluesnews.com/s/113131/warhammer-40k-space-marine-using-steamworks-not-gfwl

So not sure if this was brought up since I havnt paid attention to this game yet. Does it have good old building of structures and resourcing and so on? Or is it another point and click 4 man adventure romp? If not I probably wont get it. I beat 40k 2, and while its a solid game, it just wasnt my thing.