The studio behind Iron Harvest was given the DoW franchise and they've been cooking. Slated to release next year they dropped the trailer and gave early access demo to some people. So far all the reviews have been extremely positive.
Trailer:
Early demo review:
Developer interview:
I have to say I haven't been more hyped for a game in a very long time.
Some features:
4 playable races at launch (SM, AdMech, Orks, Necrons). 4 separate campaigns forming an overarching story (written by established GW author John French). Multiplayer with ranked and custom games, Last Stand mode too. Seems like a mix of best features from DoW 1 & 2.
On August 22 2025 19:26 maybenexttime wrote: I can't see it becoming a major competitive RTS, tbh. Four races is a lot to balance. Adding more in expansions would be a nightmare. But we'll see.
WC3 is relatively balanced and all races won major tournaments back in the day.
On August 22 2025 19:26 maybenexttime wrote: I can't see it becoming a major competitive RTS, tbh. Four races is a lot to balance. Adding more in expansions would be a nightmare. But we'll see.
WC3 is relatively balanced and all races won major tournaments back in the day.
Wasn't Undead underperforming most of WC3's history? IIRC, there were a couple of Undead players who were winning major tournaments (MaDFroG comes to mind), whereas other races had a wide cast of well performing players.
On August 22 2025 19:26 maybenexttime wrote: I can't see it becoming a major competitive RTS, tbh. Four races is a lot to balance. Adding more in expansions would be a nightmare. But we'll see.
WC3 is relatively balanced and all races won major tournaments back in the day.
Wasn't Undead underperforming most of WC3's history? IIRC, there were a couple of Undead players who were winning major tournaments (MaDFroG comes to mind), whereas other races had a wide cast of well performing players.
There were times when some races were more dominant than others but typically each race could win at the highest level. It's often down to player skill alone (like Happy dominating WC3 as Undead for a long time now even though other UD players aren't faring as good). Sometimes there's also a period when a new dominant strat is introduced and it takes players a while to figure it out and stop the onslaught (like the recent pally/rifle for HU owning everything).
Overall the balance is fairly good in WC3.
Dawn of War 1 had 9 playable factions and there weren't that many imbalances.
Dawn of War 2 had 6 factions and the balance wasn't terrible either.
I also think that balancing so many factions is super difficult but I guess that if you have that many factions your goal in balancing is to simply not make one faction good vs all the others, this way even if you do have favorable matchups you also have some unfavorable ones so it balances itself out. Just need minor tweaks then so it's never a completely one sided roflstomp even in favored vs unfavored matchup. No need to go for perfect win ratio between all the factions.
And I don't know why you can't see it becoming a competitive RTS. DoW2 had a tournament match posted on YouTube no longer than 22 hours ago as of me posting this. The competitive scene for it isn't big but it's there and has been active for the past 16 years. I don't see a reason why DoW 4 can't also have a competitive scene if it's a well made game.
Any 40K game almost automatically gets a +1 from me to its rating. A weakness of mine.
But I think a good central gameplay loop, fun campaigns and multiplayer that’s at least decent, even if it’s not gonna replace Blizz games in my affection would be a pretty good result all-round
On August 23 2025 00:27 WombaT wrote: What is Last Stand mode?
In DoW2 it was 3 players PvE, each controlling a single hero and fighting waves of tougher and tougher enemies including boss rounds. You got to score points there (for rankings potentially) and also got xp so your hero "leveled up" (no stats increases or anything but you did meta-progression by unlocking more wargear options which changed your heroes stats and gave them different abilities so you could customize your hero in a myriad different ways - customization was before the game starts so once the game starts you're locked in to your build).
Cool and fun stuff, was quite popular and a lot of epic moments.
I remember once I built my hero to be high single target dps, for sniping big baddies but then there's one round where you're fighting your clones and if we didn't gank my clone first it would one-shot us all
On August 23 2025 00:27 WombaT wrote: What is Last Stand mode?
In DoW2 it was 3 players PvE, each controlling a single hero and fighting waves of tougher and tougher enemies including boss rounds. You got to score points there (for rankings potentially) and also got xp so your hero "leveled up" (no stats increases or anything but you did meta-progression by unlocking more wargear options which changed your heroes stats and gave them different abilities so you could customize your hero in a myriad different ways - customization was before the game starts so once the game starts you're locked in to your build).
Cool and fun stuff, was quite popular and a lot of epic moments.
I remember once I built my hero to be high single target dps, for sniping big baddies but then there's one round where you're fighting your clones and if we didn't gank my clone first it would one-shot us all
On August 23 2025 00:27 WombaT wrote: What is Last Stand mode?
In DoW2 it was 3 players PvE, each controlling a single hero and fighting waves of tougher and tougher enemies including boss rounds. You got to score points there (for rankings potentially) and also got xp so your hero "leveled up" (no stats increases or anything but you did meta-progression by unlocking more wargear options which changed your heroes stats and gave them different abilities so you could customize your hero in a myriad different ways - customization was before the game starts so once the game starts you're locked in to your build).
Cool and fun stuff, was quite popular and a lot of epic moments.
I remember once I built my hero to be high single target dps, for sniping big baddies but then there's one round where you're fighting your clones and if we didn't gank my clone first it would one-shot us all
nice, sounds like good news for co-op fans ^_^
There's also co-op campaign (not sure how this works but it's supposed to be there).
One thing that kinda blows my mind when I think about it is that they've made sync animations for close combat for every unit fighting every other unit (so your close combat will look different depending on what's fighting what).
Like this tomb spyder climbing the dreadnaught arm:
This is going to be awesome from the spectator point of view or when making montage videos.
Yeah, looks pretty good actually. I hope I can revise my statement about this becoming another failure.
On August 23 2025 07:12 Manit0u wrote:
There's also co-op campaign (not sure how this works but it's supposed to be there).
But there was a coop campaign in DoW2 already. I assume it will be similar. At least that's what I'm hoping because it was literally the only thing DoW2 had going for it.
King Art Games made Battleworld Kronos 13 years ago. If you like Advance Wars you might like BWK. It is on sale on Steam for $4. For such an old game it does not go on sale very often. To get an idea of the talent level of King Art Games....check it out. https://store.steampowered.com/app/237470/Battle_Worlds_Kronos/
Ok, buckle up 😉 In general, melee combat is kind of a big deal in DoW4. Units that focus on melee always have the disadvantage that they must reach the enemy before they can deal significant amounts of damage. To make them competitive, melee units on average deal more damage. But we also gave them the ability to “bind” enemies in melee. When units fight in melee they kind of “stick” together as long as one of the participating units wants to stay in melee (e.g. a weaker range unit can’t just run away, the melee units tries to keep them engaged).
Copying the Realms of Ruin melee lock mechanic is certainly a choice. Please tell me I'm misreading this.
Ok, buckle up 😉 In general, melee combat is kind of a big deal in DoW4. Units that focus on melee always have the disadvantage that they must reach the enemy before they can deal significant amounts of damage. To make them competitive, melee units on average deal more damage. But we also gave them the ability to “bind” enemies in melee. When units fight in melee they kind of “stick” together as long as one of the participating units wants to stay in melee (e.g. a weaker range unit can’t just run away, the melee units tries to keep them engaged).
Copying the Realms of Ruin melee lock mechanic is certainly a choice. Please tell me I'm misreading this.
Well, that has also been a part of Dawn of War since forever. If you engage in melee you typically can't just run away as easily because members of the unit get stuck in animation locks, knocked down, move slower etc.
Nothing new really.
And it also presents some interesting strategy choices. If you're heavily outgunned you can force one of your weaker shooting units to engage stronger shooting unit in melee and thus reduce your casualties etc.
Ok, buckle up 😉 In general, melee combat is kind of a big deal in DoW4. Units that focus on melee always have the disadvantage that they must reach the enemy before they can deal significant amounts of damage. To make them competitive, melee units on average deal more damage. But we also gave them the ability to “bind” enemies in melee. When units fight in melee they kind of “stick” together as long as one of the participating units wants to stay in melee (e.g. a weaker range unit can’t just run away, the melee units tries to keep them engaged).
Copying the Realms of Ruin melee lock mechanic is certainly a choice. Please tell me I'm misreading this.
They will just add a retreat mechanic again. You press a button and your units run to your base.
On October 02 2025 20:15 Doublemint wrote: liked the single player campaigns immensely. the universe is hilariously silly and good fun.
Well, StarCraft was supposedly meant to be set in this universe but they couldn't make the deal on the IP.
that's something I had no idea about.
thank god it turned out the way it did lol, SC seems way more "grounded" though similarities are undeniable.
It's just a rumour though. Blizzard will of course deny it for legal reasons etc. but both Warcraft and Starcraft were pretty heavily inspired by Warhammer and Warhammer 40K respectively. Andy Chambers (one of the key figures in Games Wokshop responsible for a lot of lore and game design) was even working as a consultant for StarCraft 2.
I think it's just an urban legend at this point - WarCraft for sure was supposed to be Warhammer seeing how their design for orcs is pretty much 1-1 with WH orcs. If StarCraft was actually going to be set in 40k we'll never know but influences are clearly there. Sure, protoss/eldar is a bit of a stretch but the design on some units like the Phoenix is clearly Eldar and the general vibe of ancient space-faring race with psychic powers as well as housing the spirits of their deceased in constructs (Dragoons) is all there.
On October 02 2025 20:15 Doublemint wrote: liked the single player campaigns immensely. the universe is hilariously silly and good fun.
Well, StarCraft was supposedly meant to be set in this universe but they couldn't make the deal on the IP.
that's something I had no idea about.
thank god it turned out the way it did lol, SC seems way more "grounded" though similarities are undeniable.
It's just a rumour though. Blizzard will of course deny it for legal reasons etc. but both Warcraft and Starcraft were pretty heavily inspired by Warhammer and Warhammer 40K respectively. Andy Chambers (one of the key figures in Games Wokshop responsible for a lot of lore and game design) was even working as a consultant for StarCraft 2.
I think it's just an urban legend at this point - WarCraft for sure was supposed to be Warhammer seeing how their design for orcs is pretty much 1-1 with WH orcs. If StarCraft was actually going to be set in 40k we'll never know but influences are clearly there. Sure, protoss/eldar is a bit of a stretch but the design on some units like the Phoenix is clearly Eldar and the general vibe of ancient space-faring race with psychic powers as well as housing the spirits of their deceased in constructs (Dragoons) is all there.
Eldar ships for comparison.
That's not Starcraft 2 through. That is Starcraft 1. The Scout is 1:1 Eldar ship
On October 02 2025 20:15 Doublemint wrote: liked the single player campaigns immensely. the universe is hilariously silly and good fun.
Well, StarCraft was supposedly meant to be set in this universe but they couldn't make the deal on the IP.
that's something I had no idea about.
thank god it turned out the way it did lol, SC seems way more "grounded" though similarities are undeniable.
It's just a rumour though. Blizzard will of course deny it for legal reasons etc. but both Warcraft and Starcraft were pretty heavily inspired by Warhammer and Warhammer 40K respectively. Andy Chambers (one of the key figures in Games Wokshop responsible for a lot of lore and game design) was even working as a consultant for StarCraft 2.
I think it's just an urban legend at this point - WarCraft for sure was supposed to be Warhammer seeing how their design for orcs is pretty much 1-1 with WH orcs. If StarCraft was actually going to be set in 40k we'll never know but influences are clearly there. Sure, protoss/eldar is a bit of a stretch but the design on some units like the Phoenix is clearly Eldar and the general vibe of ancient space-faring race with psychic powers as well as housing the spirits of their deceased in constructs (Dragoons) is all there.
Eldar ships for comparison.
That's not Starcraft 2 through. That is Starcraft 1. The Scout is 1:1 Eldar ship
I know the post was a bit confusing because it conflated SC2 with SC but I assumed the original SC was already supposed to be set in W40k or heavily borrowed from it for obvious reasons.
On October 02 2025 20:15 Doublemint wrote: liked the single player campaigns immensely. the universe is hilariously silly and good fun.
Well, StarCraft was supposedly meant to be set in this universe but they couldn't make the deal on the IP.
that's something I had no idea about.
thank god it turned out the way it did lol, SC seems way more "grounded" though similarities are undeniable.
It's just a rumour though. Blizzard will of course deny it for legal reasons etc. but both Warcraft and Starcraft were pretty heavily inspired by Warhammer and Warhammer 40K respectively. Andy Chambers (one of the key figures in Games Wokshop responsible for a lot of lore and game design) was even working as a consultant for StarCraft 2.
I think it's just an urban legend at this point - WarCraft for sure was supposed to be Warhammer seeing how their design for orcs is pretty much 1-1 with WH orcs. If StarCraft was actually going to be set in 40k we'll never know but influences are clearly there. Sure, protoss/eldar is a bit of a stretch but the design on some units like the Phoenix is clearly Eldar and the general vibe of ancient space-faring race with psychic powers as well as housing the spirits of their deceased in constructs (Dragoons) is all there.
Eldar ships for comparison.
That's not Starcraft 2 through. That is Starcraft 1. The Scout is 1:1 Eldar ship
I know the post was a bit confusing because it conflated SC2 with SC but I assumed the original SC was already supposed to be set in W40k or heavily borrowed from it for obvious reasons.
Well, both of them have some influences (regarding Protoss/Eldar). Warp Prism seems extremely Eldar-like and SC2 Phoenix is very much an Eldar fighter jet...
At least when wc3 was made, the creators were thinking about WH40k, after all the Gryphon Rider has a voiceline along the lines of "This warhammer cost 40k, hehe" if you select one often enough.. ;>
I stumbled into Dawn of War 1 when Dark Crusade was the current expansion and I gotta say I enjoyed it tremendously. The way they got rid of the base building components in dow2 wasn't really my thing, though, so I didnt check out any of the later titles. I always was pretty annoyed by how obfuscated real information about units' values etc was in that game (i.e. what unit types there are and how much damage which unit'weapon actually does against which unit type etc). The game certianly felt way less figured out than any other rts ive ever actively played, though, but probably that is just due to lower level of play in general.
DoW 1 was a better "RTS" before it's expansions. But it was a better "Warhammer-RTS" with it's expansions. I remember vividly how I hated the dumbing down/streamlining with the first Addon (that I didn't care for any of the new factions/races certainly didn't help) :D.
DoW 2 wasn't my cake, it was good for what it was but well... Not for me.
I'm surprised so many people here are not fond of DoW2. For me it was better than DoW1. Base building being gone isn't much of an issue since you barely had any base building in DoW1 to begin with (most multiplayer games barely required you to go past 5-6 buildings in your base, excluding the listening posts).
DoW2 put way more emphasis on more tactical aspect of the game and made everything just look and feel better. And lategame battles with the big units and all the abilities look so cool...
I'm watching casts with commentary of DoW2 games to this day. There was a surge in DoW1 casts recently with the remastered version but they're not as enjoyable to watch IMO.
On October 17 2025 00:35 Manit0u wrote: I'm surprised so many people here are not fond of DoW2. For me it was better than DoW1. Base building being gone isn't much of an issue since you barely had any base building in DoW1 to begin with (most multiplayer games barely required you to go past 5-6 buildings in your base, excluding the listening posts).
DoW2 put way more emphasis on more tactical aspect of the game and made everything just look and feel better. And lategame battles with the big units and all the abilities look so cool...
I'm watching casts with commentary of DoW2 games to this day. There was a surge in DoW1 casts recently with the remastered version but they're not as enjoyable to watch IMO.
To be fair, I really never gave it a proper shot. It certainly sounds logical and consciously I agree with your points, but at least back in the day, I had a very strong repulsive reaction to what I considered "even less macro", mostly because I felt like the aspect of base building was something I already missed a lot in DoW1 (where I had most fun with the factions that had a somewhat more relevant decision tree in that area, I guess the wc3 background showed). Luckily, SC2 was right around the corner, so DoW2 never got much of my attention..
On October 17 2025 00:35 Manit0u wrote: I'm surprised so many people here are not fond of DoW2. For me it was better than DoW1. Base building being gone isn't much of an issue since you barely had any base building in DoW1 to begin with (most multiplayer games barely required you to go past 5-6 buildings in your base, excluding the listening posts).
DoW2 put way more emphasis on more tactical aspect of the game and made everything just look and feel better. And lategame battles with the big units and all the abilities look so cool...
I'm watching casts with commentary of DoW2 games to this day. There was a surge in DoW1 casts recently with the remastered version but they're not as enjoyable to watch IMO.
To be fair, I really never gave it a proper shot. It certainly sounds logical and consciously I agree with your points, but at least back in the day, I had a very strong repulsive reaction to what I considered "even less macro", mostly because I felt like the aspect of base building was something I already missed a lot in DoW1 (where I had most fun with the factions that had a somewhat more relevant decision tree in that area, I guess the wc3 background showed). Luckily, SC2 was right around the corner, so DoW2 never got much of my attention..
For me it was DoW2 that got my attention as SC2 failed to impress me (and fails to this day).
I had plenty of fun with Dow 2 but after about 3 Weeks everything just felt very samey. Playing a game felt more like going thru the motions than anything else.
Also: Focus on 3v3 certainly was one of the decisions of all time. No chatroom/lobbies...
On October 17 2025 20:05 Velr wrote: I had plenty of fun with Dow 2 but after about 3 Weeks everything just felt very samey. Playing a game felt more like going thru the motions than anything else.
Also: Focus on 3v3 certainly was one of the decisions of all time. No chatroom/lobbies...
The 3v3 focus meant I bought and played it in multiplayer. I never touched multiplayer in DoW 1. It was also something that made me slightly interested in Stormgate until they decided not to care about more than 1vs1.
Though I see a lot of proof that 1vs1 is popular with titles like Mechabellum being the most successful title in the space in recent years. Oh wait that is an auto battler, there hasn't been a non-auto battler that is successful in the PvP RTS sphere in years. Closest I guess is Beyond All Reason where the majority play 4v4 and up due to lack of matchmaking. And AoE 4 where 1vs1 is somewhat popular.
I am honestly of the opinion that you should budget for and develop a game for single player or coop modes if you are doing an RTS. If you have some spare cash you throw in a PvP mode and see if it sticks around.
I think 3v3-4v4 team based RTS can work. But not like it was done in DoW 2 (iirc Command and Conquer also tried it?). A team mode shouldn't just mean that 3 people do basically the same stuff in parallel just in a bigger clusterfuck when compared to 1on1.
Games like Supreme Commander/Beyond all reason imho have the better Idea on how this should be done with players basically having specific roles depending on their spawn location (which your totally free to ignoredeviate from, but then you better know damn well what your doing) and the games having wide/ deep enough Tech trees to make that feasible, iirc DoW 2 lacked that.
On October 17 2025 23:16 Velr wrote: I think 3v3-4v4 team based RTS can work. But not like it was done in DoW 2 (iirc Command and Conquer also tried it?). A team mode shouldn't just mean that 3 people do basically the same stuff in parallel just in a bigger clusterfuck when compared to 1on1.
Games like Supreme Commander/Beyond all reason imho have the better Idea on how this should be done with players basically having specific roles depending on their spawn location (which your totally free to ignoredeviate from, but then you better know damn well what your doing) and the games having wide/ deep enough Tech trees to make that feasible, iirc DoW 2 lacked that.
I think you could approach it more like Dota and all its spinoffs do. Where you have different strengths and weaknesses on top of how you are expected to play. A faction with no defensive units or buildings and tons of skirmishing units, another one with big beefy ones etc. This works in team games better than in 1vs1 where you have to be able to do everything at least a little or you just die.
I enjoyed BattleForge where you built your own unit set and mostly played PvE where having things you did well and others you did poorly was a big part of it. I think there was also another title recently where you built your own army that folded. This approach would allow hyper specialization where one player has stronger economy, another stronger air and a third strong static defenses for an air raiding style.
That is also a big part of how tabletop Warhammer is played, picking the units that make up your army for that round.
Sadly not suitable for Warhammer would be something like a mix of strategy types. One person playing an auto battler, another doing mostly tactics focus with high APM etc.
On October 17 2025 23:16 Velr wrote: I think 3v3-4v4 team based RTS can work. But not like it was done in DoW 2 (iirc Command and Conquer also tried it?). A team mode shouldn't just mean that 3 people do basically the same stuff in parallel just in a bigger clusterfuck when compared to 1on1.
Games like Supreme Commander/Beyond all reason imho have the better Idea on how this should be done with players basically having specific roles depending on their spawn location (which your totally free to ignoredeviate from, but then you better know damn well what your doing) and the games having wide/ deep enough Tech trees to make that feasible, iirc DoW 2 lacked that.
I think they had good kernels for that in WC3 but they didn't really develop it enough. I'd totally dig an RTS that lets you do cool stuff in 2v2/3v3 that isn't really feasible in 1v1.
What I'm talking about is how players got creative with WC3 team resource sharing. Where in 2v2 you could send resources to your teammate and that introduced a whole new world of alternate tech paths and strategies since you now had different timing windows etc. There were even strategies where one player would forgo teching completely and send the majority of resources to the teammate so they can amass highest tier units before opponents have a chance to counter them.
The truly multiplayer aspect of RTS (FFA, 2v2+ etc., not 1v1) is a vastly unexplored space with a lot of potential in my opinion.
On October 17 2025 23:27 Yurie wrote: Sadly not suitable for Warhammer would be something like a mix of strategy types. One person playing an auto battler, another doing mostly tactics focus with high APM etc.
Are you familiar with the Savage game series? They did an awesome blend of RTS/MOBA/RPG but they were too ahead of their time and it didn't catch on. Basically, you had one player being the commander and playing RTS, with top-down view, making buildings and using spells to buff players etc. while other players were playing as units with abilities in a MOBA like style (capturing locations, destroying opponent locations, fighting enemies and getting xp to get more abilities, switching to more powerful units as commander built up the tech tree etc.). Hell, you could even play as a builder unit and help out your commander.
It was truly amazing but not many people could fully grasp the concept (it was before MOBAs got popular). Also, the game was hard. The action/combat was very high paced and skill-based (good players could 1v3 or 1v5) with different abilities, dodging etc. (think souls-like multiplayer).
S2 Games sadly were ahead of their time. Truly a visionary studio. Savage was great and then Heroes of Newerth were the best MOBA by far but they lost IceFrog to Valve and took the game in some weird directions instead of sticking with their established universe which spelled their doom.
On October 17 2025 23:27 Yurie wrote: Sadly not suitable for Warhammer would be something like a mix of strategy types. One person playing an auto battler, another doing mostly tactics focus with high APM etc.
Are you familiar with the Savage game series? They did an awesome blend of RTS/MOBA/RPG but they were too ahead of their time and it didn't catch on. Basically, you had one player being the commander and playing RTS, with top-down view, making buildings and using spells to buff players etc. while other players were playing as units with abilities in a MOBA like style (capturing locations, destroying opponent locations, fighting enemies and getting xp to get more abilities, switching to more powerful units as commander built up the tech tree etc.). Hell, you could even play as a builder unit and help out your commander.
It was truly amazing but not many people could fully grasp the concept (it was before MOBAs got popular). Also, the game was hard. The action/combat was very high paced and skill-based (good players could 1v3 or 1v5) with different abilities, dodging etc. (think souls-like multiplayer).
Nuclear Dawn had a similar system, although RTS+FPS, and sadly also didn't catch on. I enjoyed that one.
On October 17 2025 23:27 Yurie wrote: Sadly not suitable for Warhammer would be something like a mix of strategy types. One person playing an auto battler, another doing mostly tactics focus with high APM etc.
Are you familiar with the Savage game series? They did an awesome blend of RTS/MOBA/RPG but they were too ahead of their time and it didn't catch on. Basically, you had one player being the commander and playing RTS, with top-down view, making buildings and using spells to buff players etc. while other players were playing as units with abilities in a MOBA like style (capturing locations, destroying opponent locations, fighting enemies and getting xp to get more abilities, switching to more powerful units as commander built up the tech tree etc.). Hell, you could even play as a builder unit and help out your commander.
It was truly amazing but not many people could fully grasp the concept (it was before MOBAs got popular). Also, the game was hard. The action/combat was very high paced and skill-based (good players could 1v3 or 1v5) with different abilities, dodging etc. (think souls-like multiplayer).
Nuclear Dawn had a similar system, although RTS+FPS, and sadly also didn't catch on. I enjoyed that one.
Natural Selection 2 does RTS+FPS very well. I would say Natural Selection 1 and 2 are more similar to Savage 1 than they are to Savage 2 though. They're all excellent games.
Dawn of War is a great series. Looking forward to this game. Thanks for bringing it to my attention Manit0u.
i am under NDA. if this truly is a very small # of participants.. its prolly because I played a beta version of the King Arts game Battleworld Kronos before it got to Steam. I gave them lots of feedback.
i will share what i can within the spirit of the NDA agreement.
On November 04 2025 09:41 JimmyJRaynor wrote: i am under NDA. if this truly is a very small # of participants.. its prolly because I played a beta version of the King Arts game Battleworld Kronos before it got to Steam. I gave them lots of feedback.
i will share what i can within the spirit of the NDA agreement.
Sure thing. Any extra info would be nice but no need to break the NDA. It'll all be revealed in due time. Enjoy your early access
On November 04 2025 09:41 JimmyJRaynor wrote: i am under NDA. if this truly is a very small # of participants.. its prolly because I played a beta version of the King Arts game Battleworld Kronos before it got to Steam. I gave them lots of feedback.
i will share what i can within the spirit of the NDA agreement.
How is the WAAAAAAGH?
Is it like WAAAGH or more like WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGH!!11!!!
Shiiiiet I just got an e-mail from them that said I didn't get in Super sad because this actually looks promising for once, and I haven't been this excited about an alpha ever since StarCraft 2: Wings of Liberty. This, D.O.R.F. and Dust Front are pretty much the only 3 RTSes that I have any hopes for, currently.
if people are wondering how good King Art games is... their Advance Wars style turned based strategy game "Battleword Kronos" is on sale on Steam for under $5.
On December 13 2025 06:43 JimmyJRaynor wrote: Dawn of War 4 Announcement Trailer. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QeCItSg-wmI in the far future of a world besieged my non-stop, brutal, warfare only one fundamental, metaphysical question remains unanswered...
On December 13 2025 06:43 JimmyJRaynor wrote: Dawn of War 4 Announcement Trailer. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QeCItSg-wmI in the far future of a world besieged my non-stop, brutal, warfare only one fundamental, metaphysical question remains unanswered...
On December 13 2025 10:12 WombaT wrote: Not one but two potentially kick arse 40K games in the strategy space in the pipeline? Sign me up!
Well, 40K games in the strategy space have been doing pretty well recently. Barring the DoW 3 blunder there's been Gladius, Chaos Gate and Battlesector and they got pretty good reviews. Mechanicus was excellent, Battlefleet Gothic was great. Overall it seems that there's plenty of good games to pick in the 40k strategy.
On December 15 2025 00:11 BLinD-RawR wrote: total war 40k which just got announced.
Sorry, I wasn't specific enough. I'm not familiar with Total War games so I'm not sure why it's not a traditional RTS nor why it would devour another RTS if it isn't in the same genre? Also which "more traditional 40k RTS" does he fear will be devoured by Total War 40k? Dawn of War 4?
On December 15 2025 00:11 BLinD-RawR wrote: total war 40k which just got announced.
Sorry, I wasn't specific enough. I'm not familiar with Total War games so I'm not sure why it's not a traditional RTS nor why it would devour another RTS if it isn't in the same genre? Also which "more traditional 40k RTS" does he fear will be devoured by Total War 40k? Dawn of War 4?
Total War definitely has a large overlap with the RTS community, especially TW Warhammer, which I assume will have largely the same fanbase as the upcoming TW: WH40k.
So yeah, these games might cannibalize each other if they get released in the same timeframe, which would be a shame.
On December 15 2025 00:11 BLinD-RawR wrote: total war 40k which just got announced.
Sorry, I wasn't specific enough. I'm not familiar with Total War games so I'm not sure why it's not a traditional RTS nor why it would devour another RTS if it isn't in the same genre? Also which "more traditional 40k RTS" does he fear will be devoured by Total War 40k? Dawn of War 4?
Total War definitely has a large overlap with the RTS community, especially TW Warhammer, which I assume will have largely the same fanbase as the upcoming TW: WH40k.
So yeah, these games might cannibalize each other if they get released in the same timeframe, which would be a shame.
I think they'll be different enough. I suspect that DoW will attract more of the multi-player crowd while TW series cater more to lengthy solo sessions (there is a competitive multiplayer community there but it isn't very large and mp isn't really the core focus of the game).
TW multiplayer format is also vastly different from traditional RTS, there are no bases, you pick your whole army before the battle and that's what you use.
On December 15 2025 07:19 Archeon wrote: AdMechs over Chaos is an interesting choice.
Either way, what we can see so far looks good imo. Carefully hyped here.
On December 15 2025 02:24 Miragee wrote:
On December 15 2025 00:11 BLinD-RawR wrote: total war 40k which just got announced.
Sorry, I wasn't specific enough. I'm not familiar with Total War games so I'm not sure why it's not a traditional RTS nor why it would devour another RTS if it isn't in the same genre? Also which "more traditional 40k RTS" does he fear will be devoured by Total War 40k? Dawn of War 4?
Total War definitely has a large overlap with the RTS community, especially TW Warhammer, which I assume will have largely the same fanbase as the upcoming TW: WH40k.
So yeah, these games might cannibalize each other if they get released in the same timeframe, which would be a shame.
I think they'll be different enough. I suspect that DoW will attract more of the multi-player crowd while TW series cater more to lengthy solo sessions (there is a competitive multiplayer community there but it isn't very large and mp isn't really the core focus of the game).
TW multiplayer format is also vastly different from traditional RTS, there are no bases, you pick your whole army before the battle and that's what you use.
Which is quite similar to table top Warhammer where you pick your army and then fight with it.
On December 15 2025 07:19 Archeon wrote: AdMechs over Chaos is an interesting choice.
Either way, what we can see so far looks good imo. Carefully hyped here.
On December 15 2025 02:24 Miragee wrote:
On December 15 2025 00:11 BLinD-RawR wrote: total war 40k which just got announced.
Sorry, I wasn't specific enough. I'm not familiar with Total War games so I'm not sure why it's not a traditional RTS nor why it would devour another RTS if it isn't in the same genre? Also which "more traditional 40k RTS" does he fear will be devoured by Total War 40k? Dawn of War 4?
Total War definitely has a large overlap with the RTS community, especially TW Warhammer, which I assume will have largely the same fanbase as the upcoming TW: WH40k.
So yeah, these games might cannibalize each other if they get released in the same timeframe, which would be a shame.
I think they'll be different enough. I suspect that DoW will attract more of the multi-player crowd while TW series cater more to lengthy solo sessions (there is a competitive multiplayer community there but it isn't very large and mp isn't really the core focus of the game).
TW multiplayer format is also vastly different from traditional RTS, there are no bases, you pick your whole army before the battle and that's what you use.
Which is quite similar to table top Warhammer where you pick your army and then fight with it.
Yes, it is. But at the same time it's very different from a more "traditional" RTS where you build up your forces gradually, have to think about economy and tech tree etc. In TW you just set up your army and fight. There are of course different modes, in some of those you have a pool of reinforcements that you can pull stuff from by expending resources you gain during battle but it's still mostly just battle.
EPT
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/lXlEROX.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/CPS8kmw.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/2d/1f/40/2d1f40670459fb0ff39c6866453a94b7.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://liquipedia.net/commons/images/8/8a/SC2Phoenix.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://static0.thegamerimages.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/aeldari-air-units.jpg)
