Warhammer, DOW... just another RTS
Thrasher
game. Underneath the high production values, it's just another
childish 10 year old RTS time management game. Warhammer is a war
gaiming system. I expected a war game. I wanted a war game. I didn't
like real time "strategy" games 10 years ago, and I like them even
less now. This game has no reason to exist. It's not Warhammer 40k.
It's Command & Conquer, with Space Marines.
Monster
considering how well c&c did
"Thrasher" <spect...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ap37l0de4ea2epu9r...@4ax.com...
Brian Trosko
It's still fun.
I am disappointed in that it could have been so much more. I wanted to
see them do something like the tabletop game: Pick a point value, build
armies to match the point value, and then fight.
I'm guessing they didn't do that because, well, if you could do that
online, multiplayer, and it was just like the tabletop game, who'd spend
all the money on all the plastic to play the tabletop game?
Lord Nerd on High
>online, multiplayer, and it was just like the tabletop game, who'd spend
>all the money on all the plastic to play the tabletop game?
Exactly. They'll never make a game that is simply a port for 40K. These games
are always going to be a "gateway drug" for the GW tabletop game.
I was amazed that they made Final Liberation, which was actually a fairly close
port of their Epic 40K system. Unfortunately the publishers pull the plug on
support right after it was released.
If you want to port a tabletop game then this one guy is putting together a
generic program to do that:
http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/littlecyberwars/
I'm baffled why no one has done this sooner. If I knew how to program I would
have made this a decade ago.
==
remove the crap to email
Michael Vondung
> It's still fun.
Matter of taste. It still has too much micromanagement and clicking.
M.
Thrasher
<mvon...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Matter of taste. It still has too much micromanagement and clicking.
Yes. I don't intend to play it. I don't like this type of game. A real
time wargame I can handle, but this resource gathering/build/zerg rush
clickfest games just make me crazy. I feel like I got robbed. There's
nothing new in this game that wasn't in the previous 1357 RTS games. I
frankly cannot understand why they even made it. Is there that much
demand for games that are identical in gameplay to other games that
came out 10 years ago?
Same question with the old FPS. Somebody is buying these, I guess, but
I don't know why. I don't understand the appeal of making trivial and
superficial changes to a beat to death game and pretending it's a
different game. It's NOT. Doom 3 is Doom, with better graphics.
Warhammer, Dawn of War is Command & Conquer, with better graphics. It
seems to me as if somebody took the script from Gone With the WInd and
kept remaking it, with the exact same script but with different actors
and better special effects, and re-released a different version of it
every 6 months or so. It's insanity.
Thrasher
High) wrote:
>Exactly. They'll never make a game that is simply a port for 40K. These games
>are always going to be a "gateway drug" for the GW tabletop game.
I don't agree. Warhammer: Shadow of the Horned Rat and Dark Omen were
pretty close to the Warhammer Fantasy Battle system. I don't think
computer competition with their tabletop game was the issue. I think
shortsightedness and greed were the issue. They thought they could
make more money by making a C&C clone. So that's what they did. I
don't know what the hell is wrong with Games Workshop... they've got
the most popular tabletop gaming franchise around but they persist in
fucking things up, over and over and over again, when they make
computer games that use their brand name. This has gotta be the 20th
Warhammer computer game. The other 19 were failures. They've tried
Squad Combat games, Action Games, authentic ports, and Realtime
Strategy games. The only ones I liked at *all* were the authentic
ports - but instead of doing those properly, they half-assed them and
then abandoned them. Chaos Gate was a good concept... it was supposed
to be a squad combat game, such as X-COM or Jagged Alliance. But it
just wasn't done very well. Too muhc reliance on cutscenes, with
mediocre tactical combat.
I don't understand what they think they are doing, but they aren't
making money and they aren't making their fans happy.
Jonah Falcon
Kohan (and its sequel) are real-time wargames. You know, supply, morale,
etc.
Jonah Falcon
James_
I downloaded the demo, and as I was going through the tutorial, I thought the same things as you.
Click here as fast as you can to generate your units. Click here to upgrade. Click here... Click
here to uninstall. It sure was a pretty game though.
noman
wrote:
I won't comment on the "Warhammer" part because of my complete lack of
knowledge of the subject matter but considering it as an RTS my first
impressions of WH:DoW were pretty much the same as on experiencing any
other recent RTS for the first time. But then, I played a bit more and
two hours later I had very different opinions.
Before going any further, let me qualify my comments based on my RTS
likes and dislikes. I still think Total Annihilation has one of the
best interfaces and gameplay. I sold Starcraft few missions into it
and also sold Warcraft3 while I was in second single player campaign.
I am considerably burnt on RTS genre and for the most part I only
download demos which are then uninstalled within few minutes. The only
exception to this is the original Kohan, which I liked a lot.
Now DoW has some interesting features which I haven't seen in most
recent RTS except perhaps Kohan. It's still a very different game but
the Kohan influence is unmistakable. Some things that I like,
* Less units but more customisation. This is something which I didn't
like in the original TA that there were just two many units which
didn't play a lot differently. In DoW (at least the demo) you get very
few infantry and vehicular units but because of the customisation,
they can function in different ways. More on that later.
* Infantry units are produced as squads. This is very much like Kohan
or Ground Control for that matter. You initially get a squad of four
units which can then be upgraded up to eight units (nine, if you count
the leader) which can be done anywhere on the map. So while in combat,
even if one squad member survives, you can get the whole squad
regenerated without going to the unit-churning building. Having a
squad instead of individual units and, more importantly, the ability
to recreate the squad right there during combat reduces the mouse
clicks involved significantly. When you group squads together, each
icon in the group screen represent the individual squad and so you can
end up with substantially big groups that are also very simple to
manage.
* Infantry squads can be given specific roles. Each infantry squad can
have one or two special units (missile launchers, armour piercing
guns, plasma guns etc). Again it's done with minimum number of clicks.
You can also attach a leader to the squad.
* Terrain impact. Woods, ground crevices etc can provide cover.
Flowing rivers reduce the defence and movement of your units. The
interface provides good indicators as to how the terrain is impacting
your units currently.
* Morale. Squads have morale indicators and different factions within
the game have different behaviour. Certain units can cause morale
failure among others and quickly losing squad members while getting
pounded by enemy units also reduce morale.
* Very little emphasis on resource gathering. There are no resource
gathering peons in the game. In TA style you build power generators
and in BF1942 style you capture 'strategic points' with infantry squad
planting their flag and having to hold a point for few seconds to get
the main resource. Once captured, you can build defensive units over
these points that can do fairly well on their own. Again, very few
clicks involved.
* Absolutely gorgeous graphics. While there may be other RTS with an
equally capable rendering engine, the animations in DoW have no match
in the genre. Considering how the squads can fight on their own pretty
well, you can zoom in for few moments to appreciate the action. Units
have different animation sequences based on what they are facing and
some even have random Mortal Kombat style finishing moves.
* Commands can be issued while the game is paused. Most RTS now have
this feature.
The low points are,
* The length of single player campaign. I think it's only 10-12
mission long.
* You can play only one faction during the campaign. In single player
or multiplayer skirmishes, you can choose different factions.
* No random maps in skirmish mode. There is a collection of 20 or so
skirmish maps from what I have heard.
Taking all this into account, Warhammer:DoW seems to be a great RTS
title with amazing graphics and surprisingly deep gameplay that
rewards players who use terrain, morale and a judicious mix of squads
and their customisation capabilities. Excellent stuff.
My 2ยข
--
Noman
Roderick Pommier
> like real time "strategy" games 10 years ago, and I like them even
> less now. This game has no reason to exist. It's not Warhammer 40k.
> It's Command & Conquer, with Space Marines.
I've been enjoying it myself, it holds up well to the likes of SC,
C&C:GeneralndyWCIII. I can see how it might put off someone who knows the
Warhammer game. In relics defense, they never promised a faithfull recreation
of the table top system.
Rod
RogerM
>
> * Less units but more customisation. This is something which I didn't
> like in the original TA that there were just two many units which
> didn't play a lot differently.
That was my big complaint with TA. I'm curious as to why you disliked
SC, which was FAR superior to TA in this regard.
--
The only thing stronger than hope is despair.
Brian Trosko
> noman wrote:
> >
> > * Less units but more customisation. This is something which I didn't
> > like in the original TA that there were just two many units which
> > didn't play a lot differently.
> That was my big complaint with TA. I'm curious as to why you disliked
> SC, which was FAR superior to TA in this regard.
Speaking for myself, trying to play SC after becoming used to TA's vastly
superior interface was like deliberately giving yourself brain damage so
you can compete in the Special Olympics.
FatManLittleBoy
@news.individual.net:
> * Infantry units are produced as squads. This is very much like Kohan
> or Ground Control for that matter. You initially get a squad of four
> units which can then be upgraded up to eight units (nine, if you count
> the leader) which can be done anywhere on the map. So while in combat,
You can get ten by adding a healer or unique unit to the squad in
addition to the sargeant. Number of units in a squad differs by race.
Chaos marines start with 5 units and can add 5 more, then you can add a
sargeant and healer/unique for a total of 12. I have not played Eldar or
OrkBoyz yet so I don't know their numbers.
> even if one squad member survives, you can get the whole squad
> regenerated without going to the unit-churning building. Having a
> squad instead of individual units and, more importantly, the ability
> to recreate the squad right there during combat reduces the mouse
> clicks involved significantly. When you group squads together, each
> icon in the group screen represent the individual squad and so you can
> end up with substantially big groups that are also very simple to
> manage.
This is one of it's strongest points imo.
> * Infantry squads can be given specific roles. Each infantry squad can
> have one or two special units (missile launchers, armour piercing
> guns, plasma guns etc). Again it's done with minimum number of clicks.
> You can also attach a leader to the squad.
You can assign up to four different special weapons after building an
armory and doing the appropriate research.
> * Terrain impact. Woods, ground crevices etc can provide cover.
> Flowing rivers reduce the defence and movement of your units. The
> interface provides good indicators as to how the terrain is impacting
> your units currently.
>
> * Morale. Squads have morale indicators and different factions within
> the game have different behaviour. Certain units can cause morale
> failure among others and quickly losing squad members while getting
> pounded by enemy units also reduce morale.
Flame weapons are good for breaking morale to I like to include one in
each squad, even squads I have specialized for vehicle kills.
> * Absolutely gorgeous graphics. While there may be other RTS with an
> equally capable rendering engine, the animations in DoW have no match
> in the genre. Considering how the squads can fight on their own pretty
> well, you can zoom in for few moments to appreciate the action. Units
> have different animation sequences based on what they are facing and
> some even have random Mortal Kombat style finishing moves.
It is very pretty. The voice acting is good as well.
> * Commands can be issued while the game is paused. Most RTS now have
> this feature.
Also, you can chain commands with the shift key. I mention this because I
don't remember seeing it in the manual or tutorial.
> Taking all this into account, Warhammer:DoW seems to be a great RTS
> title with amazing graphics and surprisingly deep gameplay that
> rewards players who use terrain, morale and a judicious mix of squads
> and their customisation capabilities. Excellent stuff.
It is a good RTS but I think a must-buy for W40k fans (as long as you are
not a purist). I bought two copies, for myself and a friend. We play
Warhammer and obviously it is not the same but it still captures the
"essence" of the game.
--
If FatManLittleBoy says it's good, you know it's the bomb!
The Rev
> Speaking for myself, trying to play SC after becoming used to TA's
> vastly superior interface was like deliberately giving yourself brain
> damage so you can compete in the Special Olympics.
I had the same problem. I tried SC after TA and could never seem to do what
I wanted to do, and the things I could do I could never do as quickly. I
loved TA more than any RTS before or since. I was talking with a friend
about a game of it we had five years ago just yesterday, in fact.
And, man, I loved those fleas they added in one of the expansions.
noman
<rodger...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>noman wrote:
>>
>> * Less units but more customisation. This is something which I didn't
>> like in the original TA that there were just two many units which
>> didn't play a lot differently.
>
[I hate some typos... the 'two' should be 'too']
>That was my big complaint with TA. I'm curious as to why you disliked
>SC, which was FAR superior to TA in this regard.
After playing TA, the interface and the terrain in Starcraft felt very
limited. I am not good in prioritising tasks in an RTS when
information is coming fast and from all over the place and I don't
like elaborate resource gathering system in real time. In TA, the
resource gathering was abstracted and I could also set certain
defensive and offensive patterns and watch them unfold while Starcraft
demanded a lot more hands-on approach. I don't remember if it even had
'giving orders while paused' feature.
Kohan was the next RTS I enjoyed and based on the demos, I'll
definitely buy both DoW and Kohan2.
--
Noman
noman
<fatmanl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>ZZZYYno_...@yahoo.com (noman) wrote in news:41544dd3.76120926
>@news.individual.net:
>
>> * Morale. Squads have morale indicators and different factions within
>> the game have different behaviour. Certain units can cause morale
>> failure among others and quickly losing squad members while getting
>> pounded by enemy units also reduce morale.
>
>Flame weapons are good for breaking morale to I like to include one in
>each squad, even squads I have specialized for vehicle kills.
I didn't know that. These kind of little touches add a lot to the
overall gameplay.
>> * Commands can be issued while the game is paused. Most RTS now have
>> this feature.
>
>Also, you can chain commands with the shift key. I mention this because I
>don't remember seeing it in the manual or tutorial.
I didn't know that either.
Thanks for the post, by the way.
--
Noman
RogerM
>
> On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 17:59:15 GMT, RogerM
> <rodger...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> >noman wrote:
> >>
> >> * Less units but more customisation. This is something which I didn't
> >> like in the original TA that there were just two many units which
> >> didn't play a lot differently.
> >
>
> [I hate some typos... the 'two' should be 'too']
>
> >That was my big complaint with TA. I'm curious as to why you disliked
> >SC, which was FAR superior to TA in this regard.
>
> After playing TA, the interface and the terrain in Starcraft felt very
> limited.
Understandable. The interface in TA is certainly better than SC's. I
feel the distinctiveness of the units (and especially the three
different factions) more than made up for it, though.
We have different priorities, I suppose.
>I am not good in prioritising tasks in an RTS when
> information is coming fast and from all over the place and I don't
> like elaborate resource gathering system in real time. In TA, the
> resource gathering was abstracted and I could also set certain
> defensive and offensive patterns and watch them unfold while Starcraft
> demanded a lot more hands-on approach. I don't remember if it even had
> 'giving orders while paused' feature.
>
It's not real-time if you can give orders while paused, now is it?
As I used to have in my .sig - "Real-time doesn't have a pause key".
> Kohan was the next RTS I enjoyed and based on the demos, I'll
> definitely buy both DoW and Kohan2.
I bought Kohan, but was unimpressed. A few nice touches, but it didn't
feel like an RTS to me. The combats were too abstract and hands-off for
my liking. The fantasy elements were not strong enough for me, either.
To each, his own.
noman
<rodger...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>noman wrote:
>>
>
>>I am not good in prioritising tasks in an RTS when
>> information is coming fast and from all over the place and I don't
>> like elaborate resource gathering system in real time. In TA, the
>> resource gathering was abstracted and I could also set certain
>> defensive and offensive patterns and watch them unfold while Starcraft
>> demanded a lot more hands-on approach. I don't remember if it even had
>> 'giving orders while paused' feature.
>>
>
>It's not real-time if you can give orders while paused, now is it?
>
>As I used to have in my .sig - "Real-time doesn't have a pause key".
Actually, I sort of agree with you here. Except for the infinity
engine RPGs, where giving orders while paused is absolutely needed
(especially in BG2 and IWD2), I normally don't pause real time games
that often. Doing that breaks the flow of these games and I'd rather
play a turn based title.
That's the reason I couldn't get into Rise of Nations. There were just
so many things going on in it at any given time that without pausing
the game, I couldn't do anything, and if I do pause the game a lot,
then I am better off playing Civ3 (which I happen to like a lot)
>> Kohan was the next RTS I enjoyed and based on the demos, I'll
>> definitely buy both DoW and Kohan2.
>
>I bought Kohan, but was unimpressed. A few nice touches, but it didn't
>feel like an RTS to me. The combats were too abstract and hands-off for
>my liking. The fantasy elements were not strong enough for me, either.
>
>To each, his own.
Exactly.
Making a company and throwing it in combat while it heals
automatically and while the resources are gathered without lot of
intervention, are the things I liked in Kohan.
Warhammer: DoW is a bit more involved but it can be managed in real
time especially because the squads can be healed and recreated right
where they are with a couple of clicks and the player has control over
the whole squad and not the individual units. Squads even heal
automatically over time. A player can then leave a group under cover
at certain parts of the map and then concentrate on other portions
with a fair degree of confidence that the unit not directly controlled
will use cover, terrain and the customised weapons/leader (that he
originally thought would fit that particular squad given its location)
to hold their own. This gives someone like me the time to plan out the
action without breaking the flow.
--
Noman
RogerM
>
> Actually, I sort of agree with you here. Except for the infinity
> engine RPGs, where giving orders while paused is absolutely needed
> (especially in BG2 and IWD2), I normally don't pause real time games
> that often. Doing that breaks the flow of these games and I'd rather
> play a turn based title.
>
I agree.
> That's the reason I couldn't get into Rise of Nations. There were just
> so many things going on in it at any given time that without pausing
> the game, I couldn't do anything, and if I do pause the game a lot,
> then I am better off playing Civ3 (which I happen to like a lot)
>
I like a good turn-based game too. I played a lot of the first two Civs.
Absolutely LOVED Masters of Orion 2.
When I first got online in '98, I played in some Heroes of Might & Magic
2 tourneys. I loved the game, but online play required way too much
waiting between turns. I would frequently start getting drowsy from
boredom. That is why I started to gravitate towards RTS games (SC and
Warlords Battlecry 2, primarily) - no down time. There's always
something going on. Often, TOO MUCH.
Are there any good turn-based games out there with online play minus the
down time I referred to?
NightSky 421
If it's like Command & Conquer, I'll be quite happy. I'll probably pick
this one up when it hits the bargain bins.
H
> As an old Warhammer fan, I gotta say I'm highly dissappointed in this
> game.
WOW, Thraser is dissappointed, thats new.
First Prophet of Kaos
Same type of folks who still buy magic cards, despite the existence of
both Apprentice and MtGO.
--
You can't claim the moral highground
By sinking to your enemy's level.
Brian Trosko
> Same type of folks who still buy magic cards, despite the existence of
> both Apprentice and MtGO.
MtGO still requires folks to purchase cards, they're just not paper ones.
And you'll note that it wasn't WotC who released Apprentice.
Roderick Pommier
<rodger...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> Are there any good turn-based games out there with online play minus the
> down time I referred to?
>
You could try War! Age of Imperialism. It has a nice email based system for
resolving turns. It'll play turn based as long as everyone is online, when
it gets to someone's turn that isn't online the game shoots them an email.
Rod
First Prophet of Kaos
<btr...@panix.com> wrote:
>First Prophet of Kaos <ka...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>> Same type of folks who still buy magic cards, despite the existence of
>> both Apprentice and MtGO.
>
>MtGO still requires folks to purchase cards, they're just not paper ones.
Point being, folks still buy both. Electronic cards - or miniatures,
for Warhammer - are not of much use when sitting at a non-electronic
table.
>And you'll note that it wasn't WotC who released Apprentice.
Aye, but they have declared it legitimate.
noman
<rodger...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>When I first got online in '98, I played in some Heroes of Might & Magic
>2 tourneys. I loved the game, but online play required way too much
>waiting between turns. I would frequently start getting drowsy from
>boredom. That is why I started to gravitate towards RTS games (SC and
>Warlords Battlecry 2, primarily) - no down time. There's always
>something going on. Often, TOO MUCH.
>
>Are there any good turn-based games out there with online play minus the
>down time I referred to?
I can't think of any. Civ3 tried a lot of different multiplayer
formats for this particular downtime issue and very few would say that
Firaxis succeeded.
A bit of downtime is part of these games. You can use the opponent's
turn to think ahead and plan your next moves. In fact, one of the Civ3
multiplayer modes, allows you to manage cities, techs and taxes when
you are waiting for your turn.
--
Noman
Brian Trosko
> On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 12:53:27 +0000 (UTC), Brian Trosko
> <btr...@panix.com> wrote:
> >First Prophet of Kaos <ka...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> >
> >> Same type of folks who still buy magic cards, despite the existence of
> >> both Apprentice and MtGO.
> >
> >MtGO still requires folks to purchase cards, they're just not paper ones.
> Point being, folks still buy both.
Well, if that's your point, you completely missed mine.
MtGO doesn't cannibalize the market for MTG precisely because people still
need to buy cards to play, be they real or virtual.
> Electronic cards - or miniatures,
> for Warhammer - are not of much use when sitting at a non-electronic
> table.
Well, yes, and? I suggested that DoW wasn't made to be an accurate
electronic online version of W40K, because it would cannibalize the market
for all the stuff that GW sells and makes a shitpile of money from:
plastic figures with obscene proft margins.
> >And you'll note that it wasn't WotC who released Apprentice.
> Aye, but they have declared it legitimate.
Because it, again, is not at all the same thing. It can't even administer
rules, last I played around with it, it's just a framework for each player
to show what card he's drawn from his deck.
dexter
> recent RTS except perhaps Kohan. It's still a very different game but
> the Kohan influence is unmistakable. Some things that I like,
>
> * Less units but more customisation. This is something which I didn't
> like in the original TA that there were just two many units which
> didn't play a lot differently. In DoW (at least the demo) you get very
> few infantry and vehicular units but because of the customisation,
> they can function in different ways. More on that later.
the game cossacks, took customization upgrades to a extreme level, what a
nuisance it was, constantly having to go back to your barracks to click on
upgrade icons, ugh.
> * Infantry units are produced as squads. This is very much like Kohan
> or Ground Control for that matter. You initially get a squad of four
> units which can then be upgraded up to eight units (nine, if you count
> the leader) which can be done anywhere on the map. So while in combat,
> even if one squad member survives, you can get the whole squad
> regenerated without going to the unit-churning building. Having a
> squad instead of individual units and, more importantly, the ability
> to recreate the squad right there during combat reduces the mouse
> clicks involved significantly. When you group squads together, each
> icon in the group screen represent the individual squad and so you can
> end up with substantially big groups that are also very simple to
> manage.
>
thats a nice design.
> * Infantry squads can be given specific roles. Each infantry squad can
> have one or two special units (missile launchers, armour piercing
> guns, plasma guns etc). Again it's done with minimum number of clicks.
> You can also attach a leader to the squad.
>
> * Terrain impact. Woods, ground crevices etc can provide cover.
> Flowing rivers reduce the defence and movement of your units. The
> interface provides good indicators as to how the terrain is impacting
> your units currently.
>
> * Morale. Squads have morale indicators and different factions within
> the game have different behaviour. Certain units can cause morale
> failure among others and quickly losing squad members while getting
> pounded by enemy units also reduce morale.
>
> * Very little emphasis on resource gathering. There are no resource
> gathering peons in the game. In TA style you build power generators
> and in BF1942 style you capture 'strategic points' with infantry squad
> planting their flag and having to hold a point for few seconds to get
> the main resource. Once captured, you can build defensive units over
> these points that can do fairly well on their own. Again, very few
> clicks involved.
sounds good. I do like the Kohan supply zone concept.
> * Commands can be issued while the game is paused. Most RTS now have
> this feature.
>
>
> Taking all this into account, Warhammer:DoW seems to be a great RTS
> title with amazing graphics and surprisingly deep gameplay that
> rewards players who use terrain, morale and a judicious mix of squads
> and their customisation capabilities. Excellent stuff.
>
> My 2ยข
> --
> Noman
>
thanks
dexter
says...
massive assault is simple but fun TBS online.
David Fidge
> game. Underneath the high production values, it's just another
> childish 10 year old RTS time management game.
I have no idea what Warhammer is so I wont comment about that side of
things.
However I played the demo. It was okay. I thought it would be worth
it for the single player campaign. That was until I read that it was
a measly 10 levels, and all of them for space marines only. *sigh*
First Prophet of Kaos
<btr...@panix.com> wrote:
>First Prophet of Kaos <ka...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>> On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 12:53:27 +0000 (UTC), Brian Trosko
>> <btr...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>> >First Prophet of Kaos <ka...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Same type of folks who still buy magic cards, despite the existence of
>> >> both Apprentice and MtGO.
>> >
>> >MtGO still requires folks to purchase cards, they're just not paper ones.
>
>> Point being, folks still buy both.
>
>Well, if that's your point, you completely missed mine.
>
>MtGO doesn't cannibalize the market for MTG precisely because people still
>need to buy cards to play, be they real or virtual.
You must have missed the doom-and-gloom naysayers, who swore this
would be the death of either the real or virtual versions. MtGO has
*more* potential to 'cannibalize' (or be cannabilized by) the market
precisely because it requires the same expenditure: one's 'card
budget' must be either split between the two or devoted to one alone.
>> Electronic cards - or miniatures,
>> for Warhammer - are not of much use when sitting at a non-electronic
>> table.
>
>Well, yes, and? I suggested that DoW wasn't made to be an accurate
>electronic online version of W40K, because it would cannibalize the market
>for all the stuff that GW sells and makes a shitpile of money from:
>plastic figures with obscene proft margins.
And why is that? It's not like you can use it away from your
computer, and - *quite* unlike MtGO - it wouldn't be asking for upkeep
fees. It would, as I say, have *less* ability to cannibalize the
market.
>
>> >And you'll note that it wasn't WotC who released Apprentice.
>
>> Aye, but they have declared it legitimate.
>
>Because it, again, is not at all the same thing. It can't even administer
>rules, last I played around with it, it's just a framework for each player
>to show what card he's drawn from his deck.
Which is *exactly* like the solid game. Unless you somehow imagine
that the paper cards somehow adjudicate themselves independently of
the players?
Brian Trosko
> You must have missed the doom-and-gloom naysayers, who swore this
> would be the death of either the real or virtual versions. MtGO has
> *more* potential to 'cannibalize' (or be cannabilized by) the market
> precisely because it requires the same expenditure: one's 'card
> budget' must be either split between the two or devoted to one alone.
Yes, but in either case, WotC *still gets paid*.
> >Well, yes, and? I suggested that DoW wasn't made to be an accurate
> >electronic online version of W40K, because it would cannibalize the market
> >for all the stuff that GW sells and makes a shitpile of money from:
> >plastic figures with obscene proft margins.
> And why is that?
Because I'd get to play WH40K with my friends, just like on the tabletop,
but we could play it even when travel keeps us from getting together in
the same room, using the same rules, with the computer as administrator to
automatically resolve die rolls and LOS and a bunch of the other
pain-in-the-ass aspects of the tabletop game, and we wouldn't have to
spend a small fortune on miniatures and rulebooks in order to do it.
> It's not like you can use it away from your
> computer, and - *quite* unlike MtGO - it wouldn't be asking for upkeep
> fees.
Yes. At this point, I begin to feel we're talking past each other. I'm
talking about a situation where sales of the computer game would impact
the parent company's bottom line. You're talking about MtGO, where it
doesn't.
RogerM
>
> A bit of downtime is part of these games. You can use the opponent's
> turn to think ahead and plan your next moves.
Not in HoMM 2. You were left with the functional equivalent of a blank
screen when awaiting your next turn.
>In fact, one of the Civ3
> multiplayer modes, allows you to manage cities, techs and taxes when
> you are waiting for your turn.
That sounds like a significant improvement.
Raymond Martineau
>> Now DoW has some interesting features which I haven't seen in most
>> recent RTS except perhaps Kohan. It's still a very different game but
>> the Kohan influence is unmistakable. Some things that I like,
>>
>> * Less units but more customisation. This is something which I didn't
>> like in the original TA that there were just two many units which
>> didn't play a lot differently. In DoW (at least the demo) you get very
>> few infantry and vehicular units but because of the customisation,
>> they can function in different ways. More on that later.
>
>i dont like customizing units, which is one reason i liked TA.
>
>the game cossacks, took customization upgrades to a extreme level, what a
>nuisance it was, constantly having to go back to your barracks to click on
>upgrade icons, ugh.
What's your describing there is upgrading units, not customization.
In any case, the issue being described of having to head back to the
barracks is a problem with the interface - which is easily fixed by placing
unit construction and unit upgrades within the same queue.
Sam
past couple years.
James_
>
> I downloaded the demo, and as I was going through the tutorial, I thought the same things as you.
> Click here as fast as you can to generate your units. Click here to upgrade. Click here... Click
> here to uninstall. It sure was a pretty game though.
>
After bad mouthing DOW, I played the demo a bit more and picked it up on sale at best buy, after RTW
didn't satisfy my new game need :-) Going through the short campaign right now, and I quite like it.
Jim Lascola
> This game F'ing rocks! One of the better RTS games thats come out the
> past couple years.
you know even if its not true to the game, I have to agree its one of
the Funnest RTS Ive played in years
Jim
DocScorpio
"Jim Lascola" <jimla...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4db3c04.04092...@posting.google.com...
Since I've never played the TT game, I'm not bothered by lack of
faithfulness to the original. I'm just about finished with the
campaign....then it's off to skirmish (or maybe Kohan 2 for a break). Very
fun game.
"Knowledge is power, hide it well"
First Prophet of Kaos
<btr...@panix.com> wrote:
>First Prophet of Kaos <ka...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>> You must have missed the doom-and-gloom naysayers, who swore this
>> would be the death of either the real or virtual versions. MtGO has
>> *more* potential to 'cannibalize' (or be cannabilized by) the market
>> precisely because it requires the same expenditure: one's 'card
>> budget' must be either split between the two or devoted to one alone.
>
>Yes, but in either case, WotC *still gets paid*.
As would Games Workshop, if they crafted the right licence for a
Warhammer Electronic game.
>> >Well, yes, and? I suggested that DoW wasn't made to be an accurate
>> >electronic online version of W40K, because it would cannibalize the market
>> >for all the stuff that GW sells and makes a shitpile of money from:
>> >plastic figures with obscene proft margins.
>
>> And why is that?
>
>Because I'd get to play WH40K with my friends, just like on the tabletop,
But without face-2-face interaction. Even if you've got a LAN.
ALso without showing off your exquisitely-painted (albeit overpriced
plastic) mini-collection, which I *guess* would be a minus if your
paintjob sux azz <so to speak.>
>with the computer as administrator to
>automatically resolve die rolls and LOS and a bunch of the other
>pain-in-the-ass aspects of the tabletop game,
Not to mention kiboshing house-rules *and( strictly regulating Player
Handicaps (whereby the Expert uses less points constructing his army
so as to make things Challenging for him against the Neophyte.
>and we wouldn't have to
>spend a small fortune on miniatures and rulebooks in order to do it.
Please. You could just as easily spend a pittance on the rulebooks
and use random crap to represent units if you're playing against
friends. Miniatures are only necessary if you:
a) Want to show off your 1337 p41ntin6 sK1llz
b) Are playing with strangers at Ye Local Gameshop, Official Games
Worshop(tm) Outlet, or Random Tournament.
>> It's not like you can use it away from your
>> computer, and - *quite* unlike MtGO - it wouldn't be asking for upkeep
>> fees.
>
>Yes. At this point, I begin to feel we're talking past each other. I'm
>talking about a situation where sales of the computer game would impact
>the parent company's bottom line.
Then you're speaking out of a hole best reserved for bodily functions,
and should excuse yourself, as there are a vast multitude of scenarios
whereby GW could produce said game without doing anything more than
taking a risk with huge potential to *POSITIVELY* impact their bottom
line, and minimal precedent for negative impact.
Bloody hell, that's a runon sentence. I blame the rye(1).
> You're talking about MtGO, where it
>doesn't.
Gee, whatever happened to my comments about Apprentice - namely, that
WotC legitimized it and yet makes no money off it, and that it
*precisely* duplicates the game - right down to self-administration of
the rules, as per the paper version - save for the purchasing of WoTC
product?
1) See .sig, immediately below.
--
I'm drunk right now, and I can still outhink you
:p
Brian Trosko
> >> You must have missed the doom-and-gloom naysayers, who swore this
> >> would be the death of either the real or virtual versions. MtGO has
> >> *more* potential to 'cannibalize' (or be cannabilized by) the market
> >> precisely because it requires the same expenditure: one's 'card
> >> budget' must be either split between the two or devoted to one alone.
> >
> >Yes, but in either case, WotC *still gets paid*.
> As would Games Workshop, if they crafted the right licence for a
> Warhammer Electronic game.
They'd get a portion of each sale of the game.
Unless the game was crafted in a similar way to MtGO, where you'd have to
buy virtual miniatures to build your armies with, or involved a
subscription model, or involved some other method to keep purchases
of the game paying money to play, that's all they get.
> But without face-2-face interaction.
Which is often very difficult to arrange, when the people you play with
live in different houses in different areas of the state or country, and
have other obligations like jobs and families.
You know, kinda like some of the reasons Apprentice is so popular.
> Then you're speaking out of a hole best reserved for bodily functions,
> and should excuse yourself, as there are a vast multitude of scenarios
> whereby GW could produce said game without doing anything more than
> taking a risk with huge potential to *POSITIVELY* impact their bottom
> line, and minimal precedent for negative impact.
Sure there are. But making a computer game that's just like the TT game,
but does not require the player to spend any additional money, isn't it.
I didn't say *any* computer W40K game would be a loss to Games Workshop;
clearly that's not the case, because DoW was licensed and published.
> > You're talking about MtGO, where it
> >doesn't.
> Gee, whatever happened to my comments about Apprentice - namely, that
> WotC legitimized it and yet makes no money off it, and that it
> *precisely* duplicates the game - right down to self-administration of
> the rules, as per the paper version - save for the purchasing of WoTC
> product?
Whether Apprentice is "legitimate" or not has not a thing to do with WotC,
but instead has to do with the rule of law. Didn't WotC try to shut it
down at some point, or am I misremembering?
First Prophet of Kaos
<btr...@panix.com> wrote:
>First Prophet of Kaos <ka...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
<Snip>
>> Gee, whatever happened to my comments about Apprentice - namely, that
>> WotC legitimized it and yet makes no money off it, and that it
>> *precisely* duplicates the game - right down to self-administration of
>> the rules, as per the paper version - save for the purchasing of WoTC
>> product?
>
>Whether Apprentice is "legitimate" or not has not a thing to do with WotC,
>but instead has to do with the rule of law. Didn't WotC try to shut it
>down at some point, or am I misremembering?
You're not misremembering, but they came to an agreement rather than
getting shut down. AIR, the agreement was 'no rules adjudication, no
artwork.'