Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War II Preview

A new dawn for the RTS?

Real-time strategy is getting too niche, reckons Relic. It's hard to think of a recent RTS game that didn't start out with this very same mission statement; a preview of one that didn't contain promises to scrap the genre's hang-ups, start afresh and bring it to a new audience (with the exception of the stubborn StarCraft II, Blizzard presumably being happy with its "niche" of hundreds of thousands of crazed fans).

World In Conflict, Supreme Commander, Relic's own Company of Heroes: they all made some important strides, they are all excellent games. Yet still the RTS fanbase refuses to grow, and here we are, sat in THQ's E3 suite, hearing it all over again - applied this time to the sequel to the successful Warhammer 40K-licensed Dawn of War. Relic says it's going to steer clear of the genre's weaknesses, make it more accessible, more involving, more rewarding.

The thing is, this time, we believe it.

RTS games aren't the easiest to demonstrate, but Relic's showing leaves us impressed with Dawn of War II's immediacy, and itching to try it hands-on. It's the most confident and exciting showing of a PC-exclusive game since Blizzard debuted Diablo III last month, and yes, that does include BioWare's slick Dragon Age presentation at E3. It all just makes such perfect sense.

The robust, colourful bleakness and violence of the Warhammer 40,000 licence - dark fantasy hurled into the far future, to become even darker sci-fi - is the piece of this neatly completed puzzle that needs no introduction. It was beautifully applied in the first Dawn of War and - with somewhat diminishing returns - across its three expansions. As you would expect, the same is true again. We watch thunderous fire-fights and brutal physical confrontations, as Space Marine squads take on Ork battalions in a dense and dilapidated jungle setting.

'Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War II' Screenshot 1

Not going to end well.

Dawn of War II inherits plenty from critical darling Company of Heroes, Relic's up-close-and-personal take on World War II combat. The environment is heavily destructible; terrain, cover and lines of sight are of critical importance; there's a definite sense of physical connection to combat. There's a strong emphasis on active and credible AI for the units, and an effort to give those units some personality, something for the player to grow attached to.

Relic has gone even further in uncompromisingly axing the resource-management and base-building side of real-time strategy this time around. Dawn of War II simply doesn't have that side. "No more starting over" is the developer's motto. No bases, no resource gathering, no building units, no dithering over force composition. Instead, there's a continuous sense of progression from the RPG-like levelling of squad commanders, and tactical choices come in the form of customising your skill-set before starting a mission.

'Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War II' Screenshot 2

Bonesmasha buys it.

These per-session skills are called Accessories and actually drop as loot, alongside War Gear. A rare example might be an orbital bombardment beacon that can be used to annihilate a tricky outpost, leaving just the cleaning up to your squads. ("Cleaning up" isn't really the right phrase, since Dawn of War II's combat only ever seems to make more glorious mess.) You can collect a pool of Accessories, but only equip a very limited number; you can swap them out between missions depending on preference and availability. This sounds like an excellent, compelling system for tactical variety (and limited get-out-of-jail cards), without forcing you to work your way through a tree of force-composition choices at the start of every map.

Squad leaders level up, too, granting you an attribute point each time to spend; you might choose to improve his "taunt" (read: tanking), or double his range and damage with a "focused fire" skill. It's pure action-RPG: with almost every map, your force will become more powerful, more efficient, more spectacular. If traditional single-player RTS gaming is a series of crescendos, then the Dawn of War II campaign will be one single, extended one.

Maps seem fairly linear - the one we see, anyway, which is a push through a tangle of jungle to a mechanoid Ork boss called Bonesmasha, whose area-of-effect and line-damage attacks need to be juggled carefully between squads while you shower him in grenades. Diversions will exist in the form of territory-capturing side objectives, earning you recovery and reinforcements at some risk - the Shrine capture we witness requires a sustained and bloody fight. These also feed into a meta-game that tracks morale across entire sectors, giving you long-term squad benefits, and once captured they remain so - all maps are persistent.

The campaign, Relic promises, will be less linear. Relic's only talking about the Space Marine campaign at the moment, refusing to confirm whether or not there will be others in the shipping game. It involves an attempt to protect three planets from a massive invasion, but there will always be a choice of several missions, of several fronts to drive the story forward on. Fantastically, the entire thing will be available to play in two-player co-op. Relic isn't talking about competitive multiplayer yet, however.

We're shown four squad Sergeants in action - the Force Commander, Assault Marines, Devastator Marines and Scout Marines. Scouts sneak behind enemy lines to outflank and lay traps, Devastators are weapons specialists who lay down heavy gunfire, but the most spectacular have to be the Assault Marines, who use jetpacks to leap from behind cover and land instantaneous surprise attacks right in the heart of the enemy force. There's a tremendous and gratifying impact to this commander ability, so much so that it actually deforms the ground where they land - enough for it to provide light cover.

'Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War II' Screenshot 3

Now with added arson.

Although units are expendable, if a squad commander falls, he can always be revived after the fight - Relic say that, if it wants to make RTS gaming more accessible, it should almost always be possible to recover from a mistake. Squad mates have to be replaced by reinforcements from a drop pod, which naturally makes a lot of noise and mess with its arrival. Relic wants the environment to be "a big player" in the game, and isn't afraid to put it on the player's side - there's no fog of war, so lines of sight are only a problem for the enemy. All the better for ambushes from behind walls, or even from within the protection provided by buildings.

If we had one complaint - and at this stage, coming up with complaints about Dawn of War II is not that easy - it's that destructibility and terrain deformation look a little crude and unconvincing when held up against the best current technologies. But even this can't damage the strong and satisfying physicality of the game, engendered by the excellent animation, potent effects and sound, and bright, characterful art. More than any other - even than Company of Heroes - this looks like being an RTS where you really feel the action on the ground.

'Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War II' Screenshot 4

The Assault Marine's squad jump in action.

Add an almost total lack of barriers or chores between the player and the action, and a mouth-watering advancement system that should drip-feed depth while keeping the game supremely accessible (and indulging in a bit of collectible loot fever to boot), and Dawn of War II looks hugely enjoyable, like it might be the RTS that could finally break the barrier. Let's hope so - we really don't want to be writing that introduction again this time next year.

Comments (43) Latest comment 4 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • Gnort #1 4 years ago

    I'm not sure I like the sound of this, I would have been more than happy with an improved "classic RTS", but maybe Relic have realised that even if their game was better, it would never stand head-to-head competition with Starcraft II.
  • Der_tolle_Emil #2 4 years ago

    I'm not so sure about the no bases thing. However I wasn't so sure about Dawn of War in the first place but I totally loved it. Amazing game and I really look forward to the sequel. With this and Starcraft II I finally have a good reason to buy a new PC.
  • Ceatlan #3 4 years ago

    This sounds like it could be really good, especially the 'no base building or resource gathering part'.
  • Bleh #4 4 years ago

  • thesombrerokid #5 4 years ago

    i played half way through company of heroes without realising there was bases so i'm excited about that it's what they've been wanting to do from the start i think, just weren't sure how
  • Jigglybean #6 4 years ago

    I think this kind of thing worked well in World in Conflict, so given Relics pedigree, i am willing to trust them on this. Dawn of War blew me away when I bought it. Maybe because I had low expectations of the game at that time. However, being a seasoned pro RTS gamer, i do miss the micro-management sometimes.

    I can't wait for this though!!
  • TripSkyway #7 4 years ago

    Very excited about this.
  • Evolution #8 4 years ago

  • DFawkes #9 4 years ago

    I like bases. I like starting with just a unit or two, a main base, and a constructor. I like speading out from that initial base, taking points and holding them with all I've got. I like that initial base growing and becoming multi-functional, able to produce anything from Scouts to teleporting Dreadnaughts right into the heart of enemy territory. I especially like watching my resources tick up until I can afford that next upgrade, or desperately reinforce that frontline unit that was in trouble.

    I'll still buy DoW2, but I have a feeling I'll still be playing the original DoW more.
  • TitusCrow #10 4 years ago

    the multi player better have bases and trees or im not in..
  • Jesterr #11 4 years ago

    If it's anything like Ground Control then I'm in!
  • viper_h #12 4 years ago

    That orc has a chessboard stuck to his eye.
  • Macross #13 4 years ago

    But But But But But But But But... I like building bases :(
  • Gnort #14 4 years ago

    Whenever people say "no base building", I always think of those wretched dungeon crawl missions in Warcraft 3 that I hated, where if you mismanaged one battle you had to start over because you couldn't afford to lose units. I am encouraged by Relic saying that they want you to be able to recover from mistakes, though.
  • Lachsgeruch #15 4 years ago

    I'd say it's an RTT not RTS.

    And they better make that MP interesting enough. No Fog of War, no bases, no resources, no points to hold, just what than?! Click'n'instagib - but yet recover from every mistake ever made during your not-so-strategic decisions? So it's rock, paper, scissors for 45 minutes with a /roll waiting at the end of every battle?

    What might be a nice take on the SP (which now sound somewhat like a WoW-Battleground, read: alterac valley) sounds hardly fun in MP, if you're into RTS games that is - at least for me, for now. :p
  • paketep #16 4 years ago

    SecuROM. GfWL. Enough said.
    Edited by 1 at 31/07/08 @ 10:19
  • stevetuck #17 4 years ago

    If its just Company of Hereos but in space... its gonna be good
  • DFawkes #18 4 years ago

    I forgot about those damned Warcraft cave missions. I really, really suck in combat, the only way I ever win is making sure my base is well defended and having built varied units to at least stall any army until I can build something good.
  • RedPanda #19 4 years ago

    Post deleted at 14:31:59 28-01-2012
  • zuljin #20 4 years ago

    Sounds like they're going the Ground Control way, sounds interesting.
  • Snidesworth #21 4 years ago

    Looking forward to this immensly, though I'm interested to see how the multiplayer works. While I was never one for competing on the ladders of the original I imagine a "no base and resources" policy might turn alot of the RTS crowd away.
  • Svecke #22 4 years ago

    I really like base-building in RTSs, but this sounds like a nice mix of RPG and RTS... And revivable commanders is a huge plus. Looking forward to this...
  • reality_cheque #23 4 years ago

    Actually the main reason they wouldn't do such a thing (and the same reason we'll not get a feature film any time soon) is that they don't have the production capacity to cope with the massive boost in model sales it would bring.

    IIRC the factory was operating at almost 100% capacity when I worked there over 10 years ago, and the hobby is doing very well for itself.
  • anomagnus #24 4 years ago

    christ, i'm wet for this

    i had real problems with the lore in DoW, the idea that you could throw away so many astartes ruined the game for me

    this seems much better, though it is a RTT not an RTS
  • reality_cheque #25 4 years ago

    FOR THE EMPEROR!

    *stabs people with powersword*
  • NorfolkNClue #26 4 years ago

    CoH is the only RTS for me - I've been playing it for 18 months now - and this looks like it improves on the sheer heart-thumping, sweat inducing, adrenaline rush that you get from an intense game of CoH.

    Will definitely buy graphics card for this.
  • sneetch #27 4 years ago

    @viper_h
    "That orc has a chessboard stuck to his eye."

    Dude, it's not cool to draw attention to it like that, he's self-concious enough, that's why he "acts out" the whole time. By severing spines.

    I'm looking forward to this, just so long as there's a decent single player campaign I'm in and with co-op I'm definitely a buyer.

    However, I'm wondering about multi-player, I didn't play on-line due to my basic inability to rush (i.e. in these types of games I'm generally wondering if the farms would look better near the gold-mine or the town hall when the paladin horde descends on my peaceful orc village) but skirmish was always fun and I don't see how it could really work.
  • Schiraman #28 4 years ago

    Good to see some serious innovation in a sequel for a change (Blizzard, I'm looking at you).

    Not sure about scrapping bases and resources entirely though - like them or not, they form a key element of traditional RTS gameplay. If you remove that gameplay, what will you replace it with?

    It's also worth bearing in mind Relic's utter failure to support the last DoW game, Soulstorm. It was released early this year, and they've still not managed to release the 'hotfix' they promised months ago to fix the most serious (of many) bugs. So it's probably fair to assume that support for DoW 2 will be spotty at best.
  • bitesize #29 4 years ago


    this sounds awesome. liked the previous one but hated all the base building resource shite, so this sounds perfect for me!
  • Asundai #30 4 years ago

    Sounds like the single player will be excellent, as long as they get a decent story in there and have every battle you fight unique and interesting. I'm a bit worried since Dark Crusade did the whole 'choose your path' single player and it was rubbish since it was essentially just a bunch of skirmish missions, the original + winter assault campaigns were far better (though still not great).

    I'm not sure about the multiplayer aspect either. Hopefully it'll be nothing like World in Conflict since that was incredibly shallow and got boring after about 30 minutes. If it ends up like that then i guess i'll have to wait for SC2 for my RTS fix.
    Edited by 1 at 31/07/08 @ 11:47
  • Azazel #31 4 years ago

    I can see the old 'Fans of previous game being scared by change' monster lumbering towards this one like something inevitable.
    Edited by 1 at 31/07/08 @ 13:27
  • benstarkie #32 4 years ago

    Bring it to my console. Or beat my company into buying me a better laptop. I love warhammer, it reminds me (a geeky man) of being a geeky boy. Now where's my flesh white.....
  • Gnort #33 4 years ago

    @Schiraman
    Relic will support DoW2. Soulstorm wasn't even developed by Relic (they had long since moved on to CoH and probably DoW2) and it had all the hallmarks of being unwanted and unloved by them. Relic did a great job of supporting DoW, Winter Assault and to a lesser extent Dark Crusade, as they were their own products.
  • Turrican #34 4 years ago

    No bases, no resource gathering, no building units, no dithering over force composition

    But...I like dithering over force composition! Could they not just have worked out how to program AI that will act unpredictably in a RTS setting?

    As others have said, this sounds like the parts of CoH and Warcraft that I like the least, restricting unit choice and build options just takes away whole chunks of gameplay elements.

    I'm not afraid of change compared to DoW, but I am afraid of a game thats nowhere near the fun of its predecessor! Why not just sod PC gaming completely and go and play Halo Wars on the Xbox?

    Saying all that, Relic have real pedigree, so lets hope they fashion something that will be fun for more than a few hours. And hopefully after that they will go and make Homeworld 3 once the licence is sorted out.
  • Ryuken #35 4 years ago

    The unofficial word on the official forums is that basebuilding would still be in for multiplayer/skirmish but in a very reduced form. It shouldn't be left out entirely.

    Looks brilliant for the rest but linear missions would be a turnoff and I am not really convinced that Relic is gonna reshape the Dark Crusade and Soul Storm campaign mechanics enough. In any case, Dow II actually tries to do something new and not just remake a 10-year old game with some new units here and there, that's a positive thing in itself.
  • Codger81 #36 4 years ago

    The removal of base building, and focus on RPG and customisation is more in line with how 40k plays as a game. So it's definitely something I'm looking forward too, as it properly reflects the challenge of 40k where balancing the content of a small force of men with little or no additions is the challenge.

    Okay that will exist, but in a very limited form. Seems like it's *almost* going to be like the close combat games, sort of.
  • Asundai #37 4 years ago

    Hang on guys, it's not really that new. I mean this is basically just Ground Control with light RPG mechanics in a 40k setting from the sounds of it.
    Edited by 1 at 31/07/08 @ 23:56
  • LtMerc #38 4 years ago

    Sounds awesome. I get bored having to spend time building a new base and army every single mission, getting rid of it would be great for single player campaigns. I have no idea how things will work in multiplayer, but different is more often good than bad.
  • Codger81 #39 4 years ago

    @Asundai

    Hang on guys, it's not really that new. I mean this is basically just Ground Control with light RPG mechanics in a 40k setting from the sounds of it"

    To which I think most people would ask, "so?". In concept alone, it makes for an improvement, and with Relic's execution it'll probably be a damn sight better.
  • UncleLou #40 4 years ago

    No bases, no resource gathering, no building units

    Sorry, sounds terrible to me. I never was a fan of the purely tatctical RTS games, or missions in RTS games without these elements. Not one for me, then.
  • Nikalai88 #41 4 years ago

    My english is, she not so good... but is it ironic that the lead designer of the original is now working at Blizzard on Diablo 3?

    As for DoW2 I think the presentation in this game is amazing, probably the best I have seen in RTS. However the gameplay seems a bit off. Why not built up on the great elements of CoH instead? Never when playing the game did I think "You know what would make this better? More WarCraft 3 elements!!!"

    I mean look at CoH destructible environments and cover... they barely exist at the end of the game just when you have the largest army. So the progression is from lots of choices to less, maybe Relic should do something about that. And why not remove the annoying elements? I mean the AI ughhh, bring back the stance system and give me predictable idiots rather that geniuses that are a pain to control.

    I never like it when developers talk about accessibility, RTS games are enjoyed by many and sell millions of copies, they are hardly a nieche genre. I also disagree that complex/hardcore games sell less, I mean the most popular multiplayer FPS game is CS1.6, where you die fast, play with people who are much more skilled than you and sit off the entire round if you die. If you are going to do something than dumb downt the learning curve, not the actual game.

    There is also nothing wrong with punishing players for mistakes, all games do that. An RTS skirmish lasts around 30 minutes (depending on the game), I think most players can accept a defeat.

    I am also a bit concerned about the single player, a Total War like style never worked well in a non Total War style game.
    Edited by 1 at 02/08/08 @ 00:27
  • BobsUncle #42 4 years ago

    When you think about it, Relic have already done the no base-building thing years ago with Homeworld. The most fucking awesome RTS ever in the universe. You just had a huge mothership which would slowly lumber around and had crap defences. If you wanted to build base defenses as such, all you could do was build some ships and park them nearby. Or leave them in a totally cool looking waypoint patrol loop. I think later on they introduced the fixed gun turret, but when you moved your fleet away it had to stay where it was, so you actually ended up not wanting to build the fixed stuff.

    I'm so gay for Homeworld.

    Anyway, this game is the only reason I'm waiting to upgrade my graphics card. And co-op campaign gets me hard. Zander you monkey bollock we are playing the shit out of this bad boy!
  • Lin #43 4 years ago

    Base building may be a traditional part of RTS gaming, but it's sure as hell not a traditional part of Warhammer 40K. That's why i never got into the original.

    The only thing that annoys me is the emphasis on another linear space marine campaign. This game needs a proper Total War style turn based strategy element.