Dawn of War II Review and Commentary

On January 21, 2009, Relic released the beta for the anticipated Dawn of War II, a squad-based RTS that branched off quite a bit from the latest installment in the original Dawn of War: Soulstorm. Originally (prior to release), there were some initial gripes from the larger RTS community, with most of the criticisms focusing on how frail the units are in Dawn of War II. In the original Dawn of War, base-building, micromanagement and macromanagement (terms familiar to most RTS gamers) was met with critical applause; giving Blizzard's dominating RTS: Starcraft, serious competition on the online multiplayer RTS gaming front.

The three expansions to Dawn of War gave players a choice of nine races to annihilate their opponent compared to Starcraft's well-balanced three. Well, here-in lies the rub, Soulstorm, highlighted the fact that Relic's decision to include nine races -- inevitably led to the Eldar and Tau having distinct racial advantages over the other races (other imbalances were widespread and based on matchups but the imbalance itself was not enough to push gamers away). Essentially, Dawn of War, though exciting, frantic and strategic, suffered from game balance, and rare developer patching.

Hence the decision to invoke Dawn of War II, a squad based RTS with amazing graphics and visual-shock appeal for gamers and non-gamers alike. Criticisms from the beta testing centered on the following points:

1) Small-Squad gameplay created a cat and mouse environment where squad battles turned into freeze-tag

rather than epic battles with bloodshed and death (this may sound violent, but its what gamers want)

2) The ability of a player to engage in global macro-management, thus gaining an advantage by base

building while fighting was eliminated because there were no bases to be built (they were simply given to

you from the outset).

3) Since individual squads are so precious and critical, there exists very little comeback possibilities in the

game, should a player sustain an early loss. Predictability of match flow was guaranteed after initial

skirmishes.

4) Finally, the lack of retention of units from the prior series. Essentially, the lower unit selection goes in the

face of keeping the fan-base happy as they see their favorite creatures disappear from the extensive field

that was Dawn of War I.

In summary, this commentary, was not to attack Relic's richly designed squad-based RTS engine, but to question why they would leave the gameplay of the successful Dawn of War I franchise that fostered an environment of space-age RTS fantasy with remarkably similar unit inclusion from the tabletop Warhammer 40k series?

In contrast, if Relic took the same formula from Dawn of War I, and instead of focused on re-engineering the franchise but isolated their work product to:

1) Multiplayer (ease of use and something different than gamespy)

2) Game balance between the many races

3) Frequent patching,

could they have created a Dawn of War II monster RTS game as a legitimate usurper to Starcraft II (slated in late 2009). Many would agree that the trite saying "if it aint broke don't fix it" would apply here. As of now, this writer predicts Dawn of War II will become isolated to a small user base like the similarly squad-based Company of Heroes.

Perhaps, Dawn of War 3, will incorporate these three main points and return its fanbase to the franchise the players deserve. Only then will we see a RTS capable of avoiding Oblivion from the shadow of Blizzard's Starcraft II (A franchise where many of the units bare striking similarity to Warhammer's: Space Marines, Eldar and Tyranids).