Omahgawd! It looks sexy. Must have
hmm I've made an interesting discovery about the combat system. There's this thing called 'shield mitigation' on all ships that basically makes the shields absorb more damage as the unit comes under more fire. For example in a 1v1 the ships's shields reduce the damage taken by the shields by 15%, but in a 5v1 the outnumbered ship's shields will reduce damage taken by 57%.
This effectively means that microing your units to focus fire is bad...very very bad.
In a 10v10 situation the one who focus fires will lose the fight by a large margin with everything else being equal.
Haven't decided whether this feature is a good or a bad thing yet
This effectively means that microing your units to focus fire is bad...very very bad.
In a 10v10 situation the one who focus fires will lose the fight by a large margin with everything else being equal.
Haven't decided whether this feature is a good or a bad thing yet
Sounds like a LOT of micro management.
From what I understand, you can micromanage yourself, or the game automatically does it should that not be your cup of tea.Gawwad wrote:
Sounds like a LOT of micro management.
Then again, I'm going off of reviews and previews, so I could be wrong.
There was a video with the developer or manager or someone who said that "micromanaging was the enemy" and that on large-scale battles, it would be impossible to manage all of your units in all of your systems to choose where to move them and who to fight, etc.
I just bought it, going to install soon
Never seemed to be an issue in all my battles, id have all units focus on capital ships, and theyd quickly fall. If you dont focus fire your units will just shoot at whatever passes them, and while not an issue if you have superior units or numbers, when your more evenly matched, or at a disadvantage numbers or power wise, focusing the fire can easily turn the tide. Sheilds can only migate so much before they fail completely, so focusing fire is an effective tactic. Especially with the more power capitial ships in your fleet(i.e not the carrier)Aries_37 wrote:
hmm I've made an interesting discovery about the combat system. There's this thing called 'shield mitigation' on all ships that basically makes the shields absorb more damage as the unit comes under more fire. For example in a 1v1 the ships's shields reduce the damage taken by the shields by 15%, but in a 5v1 the outnumbered ship's shields will reduce damage taken by 57%.
This effectively means that microing your units to focus fire is bad...very very bad.
In a 10v10 situation the one who focus fires will lose the fight by a large margin with everything else being equal.
Haven't decided whether this feature is a good or a bad thing yet
Yeah I've decided it's not too bad either. Although the shield mitigation still works when the shields are down (apparently some backup generators keep it working on the unshielded hull or some shit), it doesn't seem like it needs an awful lot to max out the mitigation- in which case if the thing is already maxed out you might as well focus it to get rid of it quickly. Some of the the Advent capital ships can get up to 76% mitigation with enough spam shooting at it though Which needless to say is incredibly annoying.r2zoo wrote:
Never seemed to be an issue in all my battles, id have all units focus on capital ships, and theyd quickly fall. If you dont focus fire your units will just shoot at whatever passes them, and while not an issue if you have superior units or numbers, when your more evenly matched, or at a disadvantage numbers or power wise, focusing the fire can easily turn the tide. Sheilds can only migate so much before they fail completely, so focusing fire is an effective tactic. Especially with the more power capitial ships in your fleet(i.e not the carrier)Aries_37 wrote:
hmm I've made an interesting discovery about the combat system. There's this thing called 'shield mitigation' on all ships that basically makes the shields absorb more damage as the unit comes under more fire. For example in a 1v1 the ships's shields reduce the damage taken by the shields by 15%, but in a 5v1 the outnumbered ship's shields will reduce damage taken by 57%.
This effectively means that microing your units to focus fire is bad...very very bad.
In a 10v10 situation the one who focus fires will lose the fight by a large margin with everything else being equal.
Haven't decided whether this feature is a good or a bad thing yet
Dawn of War stands out as one of the few spin-off products (if you diplomatically ignore Starcraft) that succeeds in bringing in the solid personality of the WH40K universe. Great sound, animation and general atmosphere have carried this game for me to even this year, and it doesn't hurt that the engine is rock solid.Uzique wrote:
(P.S. My main complaint with DoW was its generic nature. It's not really drastically different from 99% of other RTS games out there- that and it is slightly more aged in comparison to newer titles... so it doesn't even stand out on a graphics/cinematic point of view either)
Personality in larger scale games, like Supreme Commander, is lacking (where's the single infantryman crawling over a big-assed daemon pounding its brains out fatality animation?) and ones that do have personality, like Company of Heroes, are still stuck in the WWII rut.
Considering Company of heros is pretty much Dawn of War in WW2 (their 90% identical) Thatsto be expected, but Dow was by far the deepest strategy game ive ever played, really gives you a connection to the units you send to death. That and it has the greatest unit lines.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Dawn of War stands out as one of the few spin-off products (if you diplomatically ignore Starcraft) that succeeds in bringing in the solid personality of the WH40K universe. Great sound, animation and general atmosphere have carried this game for me to even this year, and it doesn't hurt that the engine is rock solid.Uzique wrote:
(P.S. My main complaint with DoW was its generic nature. It's not really drastically different from 99% of other RTS games out there- that and it is slightly more aged in comparison to newer titles... so it doesn't even stand out on a graphics/cinematic point of view either)
Personality in larger scale games, like Supreme Commander, is lacking (where's the single infantryman crawling over a big-assed daemon pounding its brains out fatality animation?) and ones that do have personality, like Company of Heroes, are still stuck in the WWII rut.
"Even in death I still serve"
CoH's gameplay departs a bit more than 10% from DoW's more traditional base-building scheme, and OO even more so, graphics-wise. But again, to everyone else, personality can carry a game through the ages (developmentally-speaking).r2zoo wrote:
Considering Company of heros is pretty much Dawn of War in WW2 (their 90% identical) Thatsto be expected, but Dow was by far the deepest strategy game ive ever played, really gives you a connection to the units you send to death. That and it has the greatest unit lines.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Dawn of War stands out as one of the few spin-off products (if you diplomatically ignore Starcraft) that succeeds in bringing in the solid personality of the WH40K universe. Great sound, animation and general atmosphere have carried this game for me to even this year, and it doesn't hurt that the engine is rock solid.Uzique wrote:
(P.S. My main complaint with DoW was its generic nature. It's not really drastically different from 99% of other RTS games out there- that and it is slightly more aged in comparison to newer titles... so it doesn't even stand out on a graphics/cinematic point of view either)
Personality in larger scale games, like Supreme Commander, is lacking (where's the single infantryman crawling over a big-assed daemon pounding its brains out fatality animation?) and ones that do have personality, like Company of Heroes, are still stuck in the WWII rut.
"Even in death I still serve"
And who can say no to a bunch of meat-covered automatons with scissor fingers tossing enemies around and into the air like a chef's fingers in salad? Besides which, the DoW series struck gold with Warboss Gorgutz.
Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2008-02-17 17:14:26)
Sorry, I didn't really mean to deride Dawn of War and dismiss it as a game...
It's a very successful series - and no doubt for good reasons - but all of the above qualities that you refer to, seem to be only truly appreciated by a Warhammer fan / enthusiast. Alas, I do not fall into this category; as a game I couldn't quite get into the storyline and the character intensity as much as a real Warhammer player/gamer would be able to.
It's a very successful series - and no doubt for good reasons - but all of the above qualities that you refer to, seem to be only truly appreciated by a Warhammer fan / enthusiast. Alas, I do not fall into this category; as a game I couldn't quite get into the storyline and the character intensity as much as a real Warhammer player/gamer would be able to.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
It doesn't take a Warhammer dedicate to enjoy this series. I may rightfully claim that I am not particularly a Warhammer enthusiast (the actual game takes too long to play and the pieces are too expensive), but I am a sci-fi fan, and DoW's representation of the universe captured my interest. To deny the unique draw of the formula, once simplified and animated, is sheer folly. Besides DoW, the success of the highly-derivative (from WH40K) Starcraft is testament to that fact.Uzique wrote:
Sorry, I didn't really mean to deride Dawn of War and dismiss it as a game...
It's a very successful series - and no doubt for good reasons - but all of the above qualities that you refer to, seem to be only truly appreciated by a Warhammer fan / enthusiast. Alas, I do not fall into this category; as a game I couldn't quite get into the storyline and the character intensity as much as a real Warhammer player/gamer would be able to.
Besides which, to actually play this game for more than a few hours, you need to get into the online aspect. Checking out some of the available mods doesn't hurt, either.
Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2008-02-17 18:02:44)
Sadly my downfall when it comes to RTS-games is my hesitance to actually purchase the things. I don't consider myself a very avid fan of the real-time strategy genre... yet I always try to develop a liking and an interest in what I know are great games. The last RTS I bought was C&C3, and to be honest I haven't played it much at all-- let alone the Multiplayer element. Therefore my apprehensive approach always sees me 'acquiring' RTS games in a format that *ahem*... doesn't have 'online play'.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
For those that own it, how big is it? I don't want to uninstall everything to be able to install it.
3 GBUndetected_Killer wrote:
For those that own it, how big is it? I don't want to uninstall everything to be able to install it.
cowami wrote:
3 GBUndetected_Killer wrote:
For those that own it, how big is it? I don't want to uninstall everything to be able to install it.
I just started playing single player, SO MUCH STUFF TO DO AEOIWHOWHIOEHG!@!!!! I'm building up a massive army at my 2 newly controlled planets to crush the enemy fleet. I might even want to take out the pirates for fun, heheehheh. SO ADDICTIVE
Last edited by Darkhelmet (2008-02-17 20:58:54)
im really liking this game so far im still learning what kind of ships i should be building and what technologies i should be focusing on first but its quite fun so far. And its kinda like civilization how the games go for hours
I like spamming gauss defense platforms at my home world
Unfortunately you bought one of the worst RTS games out there. Total lack of imagination when it came to that game.Uzique wrote:
Sadly my downfall when it comes to RTS-games is my hesitance to actually purchase the things. I don't consider myself a very avid fan of the real-time strategy genre... yet I always try to develop a liking and an interest in what I know are great games. The last RTS I bought was C&C3, and to be honest I haven't played it much at all-- let alone the Multiplayer element. Therefore my apprehensive approach always sees me 'acquiring' RTS games in a format that *ahem*... doesn't have 'online play'.
This game is Imperium Homeworld 2. aka imperium galactica 2 mixed with homeworld 2 combat¦TØP¦straz_mataz wrote:
im really liking this game so far im still learning what kind of ships i should be building and what technologies i should be focusing on first but its quite fun so far. And its kinda like civilization how the games go for hours
i found a half decent review someone did of the game on youtube
overall this game is win IMO
overall this game is win IMO
Last edited by ¦TØP¦straz_mataz (2008-02-18 12:20:01)
If you aren't interested in a demo, chances are you don't need to buy the retail.Uzique wrote:
Sadly my downfall when it comes to RTS-games is my hesitance to actually purchase the things. I don't consider myself a very avid fan of the real-time strategy genre... yet I always try to develop a liking and an interest in what I know are great games. The last RTS I bought was C&C3, and to be honest I haven't played it much at all-- let alone the Multiplayer element. Therefore my apprehensive approach always sees me 'acquiring' RTS games in a format that *ahem*... doesn't have 'online play'.
There better be a Stargate Mod 4 this b/c YOu could literally use the whole stargate universe