New Philippe Boulle Interview

Silk

I'm surprised no one is talking about it. We don't learn much but there are some answers to questions asked by the community.

https://www.dawnofwar.com/article/wayward-strategist-legacy-of-war

Some chosen bits:

He also mentioned that they’d taken some lessons from Company of Heroes 2 “The other big change was moving away from Victory Points in match play.” This one pricked my ears up, as I am in general a pretty big advocate for Victory Point-based systems in RTS design. “This was an interesting mode” he said “but… it wasn’t about blowing ++heresy redacted++ up. And Dawn of War is about blowing ++heresy redacted++ up. Victory Points created this premium of building up around the point to create an unbeatable wall, and we wanted to… encourage an aggressive situation that had an explosion at the end.”

“We made the decision to do away with base building in Dawn of War II, principally out of a desire to double down on the focus on units, on the front line. In retrospect, we felt it took away more in depth than it added in simplicity.” Phil noted that the lack of production queues, in particular, became a defining aspect of Dawn of War II, and Relic really wanted to recapture some of that feeling from Dawn of War I. They wanted to return to a less linear pacing system, and wanted to add in more opportunities for harassment.

Phil also talked about units. “Units in Dawn of War II are not disposable in the least. Map control is less important in terms of resource points, et cetera. It was a lot more about keeping units alive. The whole dynamic became about the scarcity of units.” Ultimately, said Boulle, that dynamic was one they wanted to move away from. “Unit control has its role, but the loss of a couple of squads isn’t going to cripple you in the long term – we wanted you to be able to come back. In the early prototypes, this was pushed further. We had to come back from that. Units were too disposable and too easy to replace. It was an iterative process, getting to where we ended up.”

aWildUPSMan

The explanation of both the resource system and escalation system have put my mind at ease about their purpose.

Initially the escalation system caught me off guard. It felt that they were taking away the flow of the battle being down to what us the players choose to do but at the same time it can give the underdog another chance as well as making sure rushing is semi-capped while allowing large scale battles to grow naturally during the flow of a match.

All in all this makes me happy!

Bersercker

I kinda doubt the escalation will mitigate the snowballing because the new gamemode, resource system and no retreat increase the potential for snowballing so much comapred to coh2 and dow2.

Well, at least it shoud make late game units more viable in 1 vs 1 i guess.

Scipio

Phil noted that in Dawn of War II, Relic felt that players didn’t end up feeling a strong ownership of their points. They wanted to bring that feeling forward from Dawn of War I, where building and upgrading a Listening Post conferred a sense of ownership and weight to territory control.

Finally I can look away from my points for a mere second without having to worry about the warp spider exarch decapping them.

Andtaxes

I very much liked the article. I think it should be something people are obligated to read before posting.

Stoner

Interesting bits here, thanks, but some points aren't very clear IMO. The way he talks about it feels like they are trying to enforce battles. They definitely shouldn't go at extremes with units being disposable. In DOW I that reinforce function was really awkward immersion or realism wise, but it worked very well and did great job. In DOW II they went to extremes, number of units was scarce, and that constant squad vs. squad, cap/decap got tiresome rather than exciting. It's obvious they tried to add more dynamic to the game, but it really didn't work at all, which he points out in an interview few times.

DOW I had some very unique feature no other RTS on my memory ever had - infinite war. As soon as my first SM squad was out, I basically went to fight, and it never ended. Only increased in numbers and was becoming more and more brutal and bloody further game went. Surprisingly, I had time to go to base and do some quick macro during combat in multiple areas of the map by multitasking, it was simply incredible design. I don't think they were aiming exactly for this, but that was the result, and it was beautiful. Because of that game actually had incredible dynamic and true eternal war feeling to it, which I never seen reproduced by any other RTS game.

For example, in SC or WC units are precious, you spend a lot of time on your base management and mainly avoid big clashes, because single misstep means you lost everything in a blink. Instead game is filled with nonstop harassment and crucial recon. When you go to full army fight, it's all-in situation which decides who's won and who lost, and even most C&C I played had somewhat similar mechanic, but definitely not DOW I.

What concerns me here is that if you enforce aggressive approach, that means there must be choke points where that happens. You have to draw players to it, to be able to initiate it. Unlike DOW I, where battles happened all over the map absolutely naturally, and not only zerg vs. zerg. There were lots of harassment situations too with small scout squads, fast light vehicles, jump troops and etc, because cap/decap was pretty important too. That all being said, DOW I still had most classic RTS mechanics, such as rush, which some people don't seem to understand very well: it's when you pull all the resources and going all-in, when you doing it, that means you sacrifice tech and economy, so if enemy is able to fight back, you automatically lose, because he will snowball you with better economy and faster high tier units. There can't be "another chance", in that case it's no rush at all. How can you sacrifice all that, fail rush and get back up? It's completely illogical, game either has this mechanic or it doesn't.

Hopefully we still gonna be able to see and test things for ourselves, because it's the only condition when you can certainly say if it all works out or not. And I think no video or article can give any solid idea about this. That being said, all we've seen and heard is still quite vague, though it's less than a month from release. I'm a little worried tbh...

Gorb

I've played plenty of RTS games that have infinite streams of units on the field, from factory to frontlines of battle. Command and Conquer, Planetary Annihilation, even WC3 with enough resources stockpiled. I'm not sure this is at all unique to vDoW.

One of the points of the article was to point out that units aren't "disposable". They even go to lengths to say how much more disposable units were in earlier iterations of the product.

Silk

@Stoner said:
The way he talks about it feels like they are trying to enforce battles.

How is that a problem?

They definitely shouldn't go at extremes with units being disposable.

Well, he actually says they felt really disposable in previous versions of the game, and they aren't that much now - but I guess everybody have an idea on the better position on the scale of survivability (ranging from "one shot, one kill" to "everyone is a bulletsponge", with interesting middlegrounds like the ones of DoW II).

Your analysis on the feeling of eternal war and "rythm" of DoW I is interesting, I think you may have put words on one of the reasons I like DoW I.

What concerns me here is that if you enforce aggressive approach, that means there must be choke points where that happens. You have to draw players to it, to be able to initiate it. Unlike DOW I, where battles happened all over the map absolutely naturally, and not only zerg vs. zerg.

The maps we've seen seem to have chokepoints and "points of interest" were most battle will occur, indeed. Mostly where there are ressource points, objectives and/or bubble-shields. But there are always multiple paths, even in the 1v1 map, so I guess one simple way to counter a guy blobbing would be to always attack where he isn't. (Unless by "zerging" you didn't mean "putting most of your troops in a single death-ball", but in that case I don't see a problem.)

That all being said, DOW I still had most classic RTS mechanics, such as rush, which some people don't seem to understand very well: it's when you pull all the resources and going all-in, when you doing it, that means you sacrifice tech and economy, so if enemy is able to fight back, you automatically lose, because he will snowball you with better economy and faster high tier units. There can't be "another chance", in that case it's no rush at all.

All-in rushes are situations were the game is finished in 5min: either the rush is repelled or it is not. Most of the time, it's not fun to the guy enduring the rush - because he wanted a longer, "real" game, where he could use his T2 and T3 units.

How can you sacrifice all that, fail rush and get back up? It's completely illogical, game either has this mechanic or it doesn't.

I'm not sure what you meant there. Do you mean you want rush to be possible? Because I feel like it is possible right now. I would even say it is rewarded: if you manage to destroy both shield generators before your opponent can (properly) defend them, that's +2 Elite Points, +1000 Requisition and +200 Power for you. That's huge.

Hopefully we still gonna be able to see and test things for ourselves, because it's the only condition when you can certainly say if it all works out or not.

100% Agreed.

Stoner

@Gorb said:
I've played plenty of RTS games that have infinite streams of units on the field, from factory to frontlines of battle. Command and Conquer, Planetary Annihilation, even WC3 with enough resources stockpiled. I'm not sure this is at all unique to vDoW.

One of the points of the article was to point out that units aren't "disposable". They even go to lengths to say how much more disposable units were in earlier iterations of the product.

Not exactly, Supreme Commander/Planetary Annihilation and etc. is good example with such dynamic, but they are in slightly different niche. In WC3 pvp matches (not vs AI) unit micro (kiting and saving units with low hp) was a big part of every encounter, and still there were moments when you don't fight. It's the same as SC but with more durable units to put it bluntly. In C&C units die pretty quickly, so there were many moments when you don't fight either, at least in my experience. And vs. live players you can't really stock up on resources. In DOW I they kill each other non-stop and reproduce without breaking up fights almost entire game as soon as they start. There were different matches, but situation I described above was most common.

As for the other part, hope you're right.

@Silk
Problem is that they shouldn't be enforced in certain POI or objectives, but happen naturally everywhere IMO. Also considering videos I've seen, overall unit count in ones army should be even a little bigger than what DOW I allowed. I might be wrong here, but if not, I don't really see how system will work out if units will be less disposable than they were in DOW I. In most videos there are pretty big losses after every clash, but since matches recorded aren't coming from skilled players, that might give wrong idea.

Yes, and rushes are big gambles for both sides, you attempt them at high risk, and I don't see problem with 5 min matches. I've seen plenty of pro SC2 replays, and rushes were extremely rare thing to see. Still it's another diversity mechanic. All matches shouldn't have similar length. And if +1000 req and +200 power doesn't mean auto-win, than that's not really a rush.

Anyway, we all can be wrong here, as pointed out already, not enough intel...

Nemesis

One game with competent players would explain so much more than all these obscure theorycrafting interviews. Journalist can theorycraft all they want, but one single match with good players is what should actually be shown to understand what exactly is the underlying thought process of the Devs, and how they actually "designed" the flow of the game.

Relic, show us how multiplayer works in practice. I mean, what's the deal with the beta NDA? Why can't people see how it actually works? are they very afraid that their multiplayer is so unbalanced that they have enormous amounts of tuning to do? I mean 3 weeks left before release, I would understand if NDA was a year ago.

Gorb

@Nemesis said:
One game with competent players would explain so much more than all these obscure theorycrafting interviews. Journalist can theorycraft all they want, but one single match with good players is what should actually be shown to understand what exactly is the underlying thought process of the Devs, and how they actually "designed" the flow of the game.

Relic, show us how multiplayer works in practice. I mean, what's the deal with the beta NDA? Why can't people see how it actually works? are they very afraid that their multiplayer is so unbalanced that they have enormous amounts of tuning to do? I mean 3 weeks left before release, I would understand if NDA was a year ago.

NDAs are different from press embargos (or streaming embargos). Any NDA for a beta programme that might have been in place is generally meant because the contents aren't ready to be shown yet.

This is generally due to, but not limited to, stability, polish, balance, gameplay items / placeholder content and generally anything inside the game that would given an impression that isn't accurate with regards to the finished product. This differs from press embargos because they're dependent on an actual approved press build (or similar) which will be close to the product certified as "gold" and distributed for release. Press builds will usually be more stable, have a complete set of ingame content, and will generally be indicative of the product on release (barring any Day 0 patches).

Silk

@Stoner said:
Problem is that they shouldn't be enforced in certain POI or objectives, but happen naturally everywhere IMO.

I don't think it's that important.
You talked about C&C for instance. In C&C3, while the maps were really open most of the time, most battles occured near (or on the way to) Tiberium fields (ressource, for people who don't know the game) or spikes, expansion points, silos, mutant hovels, etc. so basicallt, the Points Of Interests you and I talk about. And it seems only logical to me: there's no point in roaming in a desert. Organically, people would go for the POI (Relic decided to place most of those in lanes), or maybe find other ways to get to those POI for surprise-attacks (these are the other roads I talked about in my previous posts).

Also considering videos I've seen, overall unit count in ones army should be even a little bigger than what DOW I allowed.

I actually calculated they would be at least on par with DoW I in terms of models (lower if you use only "high-tech", high-pop units, higher otherwise). The number of squads involved is higher anyway.

I might be wrong here, but if not, I don't really see how system will work out if units will be less disposable than they were in DOW I. In most videos there are pretty big losses after every clash, but since matches recorded aren't coming from skilled players, that might give wrong idea.

Nobody said they were less disposable than in DoW I. The Time-To-Kill is indeed much lower than it was in DoW I, I don't think anyone would contest that. I don't think skilled players would be able to change much either, maybe they'll be able to save some of their squads from total eradication by retreating or repositioning them smartly but that's it.
This doesn't reduce the impact, the "thrill" of battles in the slightest. I'd even argue it makes them more impactful.
I agree however it may reduce the feeling of eternal battle you talked about, because the TTK will prevent this situation to happen (I think).

Yes, and rushes are big gambles for both sides, you attempt them at high risk, and I don't see problem with 5 min matches.

Well when I want to play a game, I don't want to use 10% of its features because the game is over before I can ever use them, that's about it, and I think I'm not the only one on this.
I don't deny that skill is needed to rush correctly, I just don't think it's interesting to play against, and I'm pretty sure it gets repetitive to the people practicing it as well after a time.

Still it's another diversity mechanic. [...] And if +1000 req and +200 power doesn't mean auto-win, than that's not really a rush.

But the tactic is still viable, the diversity is still there. You can rush. It just isn't an auto-win (or auto-lose if your opponent knows how to handle it) anymore. Instead, it gives you a huge economical advantage - to keep pressuring your opponent, and probably win in the end if you use those newfound ressources smartly (to my understanding, the ressources you earn is enough to make 2 to 4 new squads and get one of your elite units earlier on the ground, it should be obvious you can capitalize on this).

All matches shouldn't have similar length.

In my opinion the only situations were a match should end earlier is when a player clearly dominates an other by using skillfully all tools at their disposal - and according to some people who were in the beta, it's still the case. Games between an RTS veteran and a total newbie apparently ended pretty quickly despite this mechanic. So in my book, everything is alright.
But even if it was not: why would games of similar length be a problem? It makes your play sessions way easier to schedule.

Anyway, we all can be wrong here, as pointed out already, not enough intel...

You're right.

CleanAndClear

@Silk said:

@Stoner said:

I might be wrong here, but if not, I don't really see how system will work out if units will be less disposable than they were in DOW I. In most videos there are pretty big losses after every clash, but since matches recorded aren't coming from skilled players, that might give wrong idea.

Nobody said they were less disposable than in DoW I. The Time-To-Kill is indeed much lower than it was in DoW I, I don't think anyone would contest that. I don't think skilled players would be able to change much either, maybe they'll be able to save some of their squads from total eradication by retreating or repositioning them smartly but that's it.
This doesn't reduce the impact, the "thrill" of battles in the slightest. I'd even argue it makes them more impactful.
I agree however it may reduce the feeling of eternal battle you talked about, because the TTK will prevent this situation to happen (I think).

The feeling of eternal battle was something really specific for DoW1 and, while interesting, I think it had it's own problems and I'm glad it looks like DoW3 will have more of a "traditional" approach, with pauses between battles and such.

Stoner

@Bigamo said:

@CleanAndClear said:

@Silk said:

@Stoner said:

I might be wrong here, but if not, I don't really see how system will work out if units will be less disposable than they were in DOW I. In most videos there are pretty big losses after every clash, but since matches recorded aren't coming from skilled players, that might give wrong idea.

Nobody said they were less disposable than in DoW I. The Time-To-Kill is indeed much lower than it was in DoW I, I don't think anyone would contest that. I don't think skilled players would be able to change much either, maybe they'll be able to save some of their squads from total eradication by retreating or repositioning them smartly but that's it.
This doesn't reduce the impact, the "thrill" of battles in the slightest. I'd even argue it makes them more impactful.
I agree however it may reduce the feeling of eternal battle you talked about, because the TTK will prevent this situation to happen (I think).

The feeling of eternal battle was something really specific for DoW1 and, while interesting, I think it had it's own problems and I'm glad it looks like DoW3 will have more of a "traditional" approach, with pauses between battles and such.

yes, both dow1 and dow2 had so much fight that it become kind of "senseless" (not the right word, but who cares?) i mean, if you watch a SC2 cast for instance and the caster after game talk about that "huge fight in the south" you know exactly what he is refering to, in both DoWs there are so much fighting that imediately after the game i can't remember the most important fights, even when i was the one playing it. So this escalation thing is nice to ensure a skirmish phase that is FUN!

Now that's crazy. What I'm saying is: as a DOW fan, I want new game to retain it's unique to series feature and improve on it. And you say: no, screw it, I want SC2 in WH40k wrapping. Seriously? Okay, I exaggerated, but idea is there. How DOW fan could want unique DOW feature to be gone and replaced by SC unique feature?...

@Silk
Can't really argue on C&C3, you got it right, but there were also interceptions of units on the way to some important position, plus a lot of moving by the edge of the map to strike off the radar. There were some very interesting tactics too, like with Nod you could build armored transport very yearly, put flamethrowers inside, drive to enemy base, and if he doesn't have counter (few squads of rockets) you could melt his base in few seconds. Also some 1vs1 matches really lasted no longer than 3 minutes, and they were pretty incredible, as you catch your opponent off guard. They screwed up and pay for it, fine by me. C&C title overall had rather extreme rush capabilities, and never heard anyone complaining about this.

High TTK and less durable units in general truly might hurt "eternal war" feeling as you say, and that's my pretty big concern.

One thing I still don't understand. One of the reasons why Relic went for power core mode, presumably was that in classic annihilation it is unlikely that you will evcer destroy enemy base. Thus they wanted to invent mode where you actually get to destroy something as big as enemy base. Now I believe no one will wait while you melt their power core, and as we discussed here, it may put some restrictions rather than liberties on entire playstyle, but players will concede early if match is obviously lost just like in annihilation, so the question is: how power core mode is any improvement in that regard?

On scheduling sessions, that's an interesting argument. For example if I have 1 hour of free time, I can play two 30 min matches or one to five maybe matches if they vary in time, so in second case I'd have more fun I think, because it was more diverse. That's tastes obviously, so will not agree on this, but I see your point.

KanKrusha

Will be interesting how people behave regards surrender. In DOW2 a lot of people surrendered very early when the game seemed lost. Others would fight till the end wasting their opponent's time. On the other hand I have had some 3v3 wins after my team mates tried to quit and i voted to continue. Never in 1v1 though!

Silk

@Stoner said:
Can't really argue on C&C3, you got it right, but there were also interceptions of units on the way to some important position, plus a lot of moving by the edge of the map to strike off the radar.

Interception and surprise attacks are still possible with the skimmer units. I think it's their most important role, in fact.

There were some very interesting tactics too, like with Nod you could build armored transport very yearly, put flamethrowers inside, drive to enemy base, and if he doesn't have counter (few squads of rockets) you could melt his base in few seconds. Also some 1vs1 matches really lasted no longer than 3 minutes, and they were pretty incredible, as you catch your opponent off guard. They screwed up and pay for it, fine by me. C&C title overall had rather extreme rush capabilities, and never heard anyone complaining about this.

Hoooo you played Black Hand. I like your style.
I'd also say C&C always had more "basic" mechanics, that made it way more easy to abuse. Most matches which ended under 3min were games of cheese: engineer rushes, MCV-rush at the beginning, base-walking, etc. things that were corrected in subsequent patches (or in Kane's Wrath in the case of base-walking). And contrary to what you said, it was corrected because people complained about it! Because while it may be fun to watch on Youtube, engineer rush isn't fun to put up with the first few times.
Note that I'm not saying Bike (or Scorpion) rush wasn't fun, but those didn't end the game that fast either. There was "easy" ways to counter it once you knew you were rushed, and a comeback was possible - and it didn't mean the end for the guy whose rush was repelled, because both economies were crippled. So the match continued for a "classic" length.

One thing I still don't understand. One of the reasons why Relic went for power core mode, presumably was that in classic annihilation it is unlikely that you will evcer destroy enemy base. Thus they wanted to invent mode where you actually get to destroy something as big as enemy base. Now I believe no one will wait while you melt their power core, and as we discussed here, it may put some restrictions rather than liberties on entire playstyle, but players will concede early if match is obviously lost just like in annihilation, so the question is: how power core mode is any improvement in that regard?

It's an improvement because of the comeback mechanics in place - the escalation mechanic, the intermediary objectives (shield generators and turrets), and the ressources you earn by destroying objectives. Basically, even if you lost the battle of the game: if you manage to save some of your units and use your skills smartly and you reach a new escalation phase that boost your defensive turret, allowing it to better sustain your opponent's assault, you may be able to come back by destroying some objectives/re-capping some ressource points where your opponent isn't, and come back. Because as long as you have shields and/or turrets, you have some time to react. (Without them, your opponent can walk into your base directly: you have 0 time to react, hence the "GG".)
Of course if you don't succeed in saving part of his army or you don't think your skills will be enough to save the game or you fail to capture points/destroy objectives in time to save you, your best course of action is still to concede; and that's fine. But all these failsaves(? orthographic doubt) make it less automatic than it is in other RTS games.

CleanAndClear

@KanKrusha said:
Will be interesting how people behave regards surrender. In DOW2 a lot of people surrendered very early when the game seemed lost. Others would fight till the end wasting their opponent's time. On the other hand I have had some 3v3 wins after my team mates tried to quit and i voted to continue. Never in 1v1 though!

I guess it will be the same as in other games, some people prefer the loser's approach and surrender immediately after the first lost fight, some people stay until the end no matter what because of "honor" or something. The optimum is somewhere in the middle, though I would say it depends on the game a lot. DoW2 was really prone to losing a lot in one fight because of things that were either quite random or just hard to take into account all at once, so it was reasonable to stay in a seemingly lost game and try to come back. DoW3 looks like it will be a bit less like this.

Silk

@CleanAndClear I beg to differ, because of the whole "shield-then-turret-then-core" that saves you time (as I stated in my previous post).
I think overall the surrender will still happen, but later. Which mean longer and more fulfulling games (hopefuly).

CleanAndClear

@Silk said:
@CleanAndClear I beg to differ, because of the whole "shield-then-turret-then-core" that saves you time (as I stated in my previous post).
I think overall the surrender will still happen, but later. Which mean longer and more fulfulling games (hopefuly).

We'll see, but time isn't worth much imo if you don't control the map, which you probably don't if you're losing. Also in that case the winning player can just go around the objectives and destroy the opponent's base or at least stand there and kill units on spawn for some time. As I see it the strategic role of the objectives will only be put to use in an otherwise even game. The base defense aspect of the turret will only really work in the early game in 1v1, even less so in team games, and not even in all of the maps from what we have seen so far.

Varnus

That mention of dissing victory point control unerves me and gives me the notion they want nothing to do with the mode despite how much everyone wants it including myself, Also not about blowing ++heresy redacted++ up? Victory point control was vicious and brutal in DOW2 literal crators and scorched fields from constant fighting I loved it. I hope they don't do away with victory point control....im only tolerating this moba mode for right now...i want to see victory point again and other modes.

Stoner

@Silk
Yes, I mostly played Brotherhood of Nod in most C&Cs, Black Hand was pretty curious branch in KW and quite powerful. To be honest, I have played C&C3 KW to till the last patch and later even on some community patches, but I don't remember them "fixing" engineer rush or any other "cheesy" tactics. Maybe some ppl complained, but I don't think those stuck around C&C for long either way. I certainly never complained, tho I was far from good at it, and those who I've been playing with. Most important that game preserved it's classic mechanics plus gave more options and QoL improvements on top of that. That's what I'd really like to see in any franchise, DOW included. As industry shows, this approach is most effective and good for everyone. When C&C4 experiment released, it buried entire franchise...

Well, it all sounds good on paper, hopefully it will live up to that in long term gameplay testing on full release.

@CleanAndClear said:
I guess it will be the same as in other games, some people prefer the loser's approach and surrender immediately after the first lost fight, some people stay until the end no matter what because of "honor" or something. The optimum is somewhere in the middle, though I would say it depends on the game a lot. DoW2 was really prone to losing a lot in one fight because of things that were either quite random or just hard to take into account all at once, so it was reasonable to stay in a seemingly lost game and try to come back. DoW3 looks like it will be a bit less like this.

Pardon me, but when player is obviously loosing and doesn't concede, it can be seen as trolling and I'd even advocate punishing such behavior, because he's wasting his own, and his opponents time. Experienced player always knows when there's no turning back, and early concede is FAR from, as you said, "loser's approach".

Stoner

@Varnus
Well, when inside your huge army of 4 tac SMs, 2 termie squads with attached commander + couple of dreads and predator, from vast gush of blood spawns god ++heresy redacted++ Bloodthirster, or your army was getting charged by Squig, or came up against Avatar of Khaine supported by army, now THAT was epic. In DOW II I haven't seen ANY truly epic fights even in 4v4. Pew, pew. Few models dead, army panics and charges to base like crazy: the gist of DOW II...

Varnus

@Stoner said:
@Varnus
Well, when inside your huge army of 4 tac SMs, 2 termie squads with attached commander + couple of dreads and predator, from vast gush of blood spawns god ++heresy redacted++ Bloodthirster, or your army was getting charged by Squig, or came up against Avatar of Khaine supported by army, now THAT was epic. In DOW II I haven't seen ANY truly epic fights even in 4v4. Pew, pew. Few models dead, army panics and charges to base like crazy: the gist of DOW II...

No arguement there im just saying the fact they are basically saying victory point control was a boring mode was a bit uncalled for or just dissing it in general i didnt quite like it as much as as i did in DOW2 then DOW1 but i never said DOW1 battles stunk i still play DOW1 battles with my friend against the AI to this day with crazy big battles. I mean DOW2 and 1 had their own charms i liked 2 for its easy management and realistic gritty look and maps and most of all the cover but it lacked the large scale battles. However the large scale battles were chaotic in DOW1((no pun)). They were fun, But chaotic and very hard to manage a massive army depending on races but no one race was easy. Also two nailed down how space marines should be...tough.