Talk:Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War II/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War II. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Deleting the Story Section

Unless anyone has a strong objection, I think the Story section of this article should be deleted completely. As it is currently just a recap of a couple cinematics, it really has very little to do with the overall story of the campaign.

I will keep an eye on this for a few days, and will delete later if no one voices an objection. -FerociousBeast (talk) 21:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

So why did you not delete the story line ? - unsigned 11:10 August 26

The Clouds

Not exactly sure, but wouldn't the clouds, seeing as how they looked red on my computer, hint at the Chaos Marines being a playable race? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.117.180.99 (talk) 19:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

It's more of a reddish-brown, and it really doesn't look like the warp at all... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.36.53.11 (talk) 20:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Is it just me, or does those clouds kind of look like a Harridan? If you look at them closely, you could make out the shape of a large dragon-like creature, and the closest thing I could think of is a giant, flying 'Nid. - Frostmourne 16 (talk) 07:25, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it looks more like the spores that the Tyranids release at the start of an invasion. Groundlord (talk) 17:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Inaccurate information

- Eldar have not been confirmed as the final race - There has been no mention as to whether or not the Eldar will be a playable race - There has been no mention that 'every playable race' will have a campaign —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.82.133.167 (talk) 19:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

they have been confirmed by now: http://www.gametrailers.com/player/36029.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.64.168.21 (talk) 21:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

PC Gamer Info

Found this at the GameFAQs Dawn of War 2 forum [1] and Relic Forums [2]. If someone can confirm and set up a proper citation this material can be included on the main page. Right now it's at about the triple hearsay level.

Space Marines are closer to the supersoldiers they are characterized as.
Less focus on resource gathering and building
It will be possible to collect wargear on the battlefield and then to equip it on different troops.
Campaign missions may have multiple objectives (such as "save the civilians" or "get the wargear"), and you may have to choose between them. Your choices can affect later missions.
Bridges will be destructible, and units without jump abilities on a bridge when it collapses will be killed.
Use of buildings as cover; troops can enter and shoot from them, but can be countered with flamers and grenades.

Baron von HoopleDoople (talk) 19:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Finally found English scans of this article. The information is now included in the article. Baron von HoopleDoople (talk) 21:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Multiplayer confirmation?

I've seen it said on all the official sources of info, thus far, for DoW2 that there will be a multiplayer campaign, but I have not seen it explicitly confirmed that there will be normal mulitplayer competition as well. As such, I've added a "citation needed" to that statement in the Multiplayer section. It seems pretty likely that there will be regular multiplayer, but I haven't seen any comments about it either from the pcgameplay or pcgamer articles. -FerociousBeast (talk) 16:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

My request for a citation was undone without comment, so I have added it back. Again, if you have a source for the claim, and not mere assumption, reply here or provide it. Otherwise, the citation is still needed at this point. -FerociousBeast (talk) 14:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Who's leading the project?

Dawn of War Soulstorm sucked. I put that as bluntly as I could. Dark Crusade and the original DoW were the two best of the series, WA still being better than SS in my opinion but not that great.

So the question that I think needs immediate answering for all of us fans of DoW, who's leading this project? How much of the team from the original DoW and DoW:DC will be working on this project? This series best attributes are its story-telling, strategy-style, and humor. Can anyone find out who's working on this project and what have they done prior to it? Paladin Hammer (talk) 17:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

All of that information is in the PC Gameplay article. You can find summaries on forums.relicnews.com, or google it. -FerociousBeast (talk) 14:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Seeing how Soulstorm wasn't even made by Relic i think you can relax... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.36.53.11 (talk) 13:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Eldar "Farseer" ?

The article identifies the Eldar psyker in the CG trailer as a Farseer, but I would have to dispute this point. It seems very evident to me that that character is a Warlock, using the following justifications:

1.) The character is not wearing a Ghosthelm. Every Farseer wears a Ghosthelm, and Games Workshop is so insistent on this point that they have turned down several amazing Farseer sculpts from being produced as models solely due to the lack of a Ghosthelm.

2.) The "lightning" attack that she uses seems an awful lot like the Destructor psychic power that Warlocks have. Frankly, there's no way in hell the SM Sergeant would have even gotten that close to her, had she been a Farseer. I love Space Marines almost as much as I love Eldar, but ... let's be honest on at least that point. A Force Commander, he most certainly was not!

The dude who killed the farseer is a force commander. He's the newly appointed FC of the Blood Ravens. Dude most certainly also whacked the Lictor who threw him off guard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.138.162.6 (talk) 04:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, I'd suggest editing the article to reflect that she's a Warlock, or if disputed, use a noncommital substitute like "psyker." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.189.33.182 (talk) 18:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The official site has a screenshot named Farseer_sync_01 here: http://www.dawnofwar2.com/us/screenshots so that is a Farseer from Relics PoV at least. 193.226.105.89 (talk) 08:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

It could be that she wasn't wearing her Ghosthelm to make the video more appealing, allowing for character emotion and the such. 118.92.182.111 (talk) 05:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Except as i pointed out earlier with the screenshot (http://thqinc.cachefly.net/dow2/screenshots/enlarged_view/0016_farseer_sync_01.jpg) that's also the in-game model atm. Ciobanica (talk) 22:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe she took the helmet off? (I don't know much about the Eldar, so forgive me if that assumption can't possibly be true) Besides, I think that the Space Marines were (once again...) depicted as being nigh-invulnerable when they aren't; the Ranger (or whatever Eldar it was that tried to snipe him) couldn't kill him, and neither could the Lictor that pops up right behind him at the end (no one should be able to survive a sneak-attack from a Lictor). Groundlord (talk) 17:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually they're portrayed like that in the fluff also, but balance doesn't really allow that in the TT i guess. And maybe that's a 5th Ed. Farseer?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.44.241.20 (talk) 22:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

And she's Farseer alright, straight from the people that made the cinematic: http://features.cgsociety.org/story_custom.php?story_id=4694 Ciobanica (talk) 14:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey guys, you can buy the ghosthelm upgrade for her ingame. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.1.35.136 (talk) 14:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but previously the Ghosthelm would cover her whole head... a pity that you don't get that in-game too. Ciobanica (talk) 14:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Speculation

Technically, unless there are reputable sources to back it up, the tyranid speculation thing is original research and speculation. Though it may be true, are there some online magazines that talk about this anywhere? --- Bubbachuck (talk) 14:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The whole thing must be deleted. There is no info regarding tyranid . --SkyWalker (talk) 14:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Gameinformer had a short preview of the game showing orc, space marines, and tyranids. Problem is, I don't remember which one it was, although it was a recent one (maybe the last 4 or 5). I borrowed the mag from a friend if anyone is speculating why I don't remember. However, I do know that I saw freaky alien things, complete with sharp scythes for hands and what looked like overlapping plates on their bodies. Seeing as the tyranids fit this description, I would guess it was them. --DoubleDee0614 (talk) 09:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

'Nids

And they're confirmed: http://pc.ign.com/articles/900/900039p1.html ; http://community.dawnofwar2.com/blogs/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/edited_final3.jpg Ciobanica (talk) 19:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY! Finally, I get to see one of the GW armies that I play in a video game! (now if only there were a Warhammer Online expansion with Lizardmen coming out soon....) Groundlord (talk) 17:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

We got ripped off. Only usable in Skirmishes, along with 2 of the other races... Damn the Space Marines and the Imperium. Groundlord (talk) 20:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Release Date

Is this release date global and if so, should it not be noted that 'Spring 2009' will not be spring in the southern hemisphere? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.166.109.194 (talk) 05:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

In the article it says its coming out in Q2, all the videos and interviews with the designers, they say Q1. --Dyp100 (talk) 14:01, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

THQ's game page - Link - (and others) have the release date as 20-Feb-2009. 81.86.251.248 (talk) 20:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Rewrite the article

We really, really need this article to be rewritten. It does not look professional at all, and THQ just released a video encompassing the multiplayer. ANY MEMBER OF WIKIPEDIA, PLEASE REWRITE THIS. 71.112.252.132 (talk) 04:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

References

--SkyWalker (talk) 02:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

DoW2 Character Page

I think we should add an more to the Dawn of War character article.

There is new information on the Space Marine characters in DoW2, relic has released it here: http://www.dawnofwar2.com/us/info/squadleaders

They have also released information on some of the main environments and settings you'll be fighting in: http://www.dawnofwar2.com/us/info/campaign/settings

--Dyp100 (talk) 12:00, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Box Art

The Box art can be found at the THQ website here [3] Dauthus (talk) 18:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Done Megata Sanshiro (talk) 14:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Multiplayer Commanders

There is a video on the official website that shows three different commanders (Force Commander, Apothecary, and a Tech-Marine I think) each specializing in Offense, Healing, and Defense, respectively. Should this be mentioned in the article, or should we wait until commanders from the other factions have been revealed (or is it not important enough for the article at all)? --24.174.120.234 (talk) 00:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it should be put up. All the commanders have been revealed. The latest IGN video showed all the commander units. Leonnatus (talk) 05:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Not on the same timeline as Dawn of War 2?

I feel that I have reason to believe that Dawn of War 2 is not on the same timeline as Soulstorm.

In Soulstorm, if the Blood Ravens win, it states in the ending cutscene that the Blood Ravens "acquitted themselves." This implies that they were guilty of something before but redeemed themselves. Now, we also know that if the Blood Ravens win in Dark Crusade, the Segmentum Command accuses the chapter of heresy, but the Inquisition drops the charges. We also know, however, that if the Kronus Liberators level the Space Marine headquarters, Lucas Alexander finds evidence that the Blood Ravens are somehow connected to Chaos. (Indeed, Eliphas hints at similar things at times, too)

Thus, Soulstorm implies that the Kronus Liberators won the Dark Crusade. However, we also know that in this game, you will be recieving orders from Thule, which means he must have won the Dark Crusade.

So, my conclusion is that Soulstorm and Dawn of War 2 Do not follow the same storyline. Rather, the two are a sort of fork in the road following the Dark Crusade. Fusion7 (talk) 18:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe that another faction won the Kauvara system; knowing GW's line on wars and battles, it was probably the SoB or the IG. I think a part of SS does not follow DoW 2's presumed storyline, but in assumption, the Blood Ravens FC was not successful in SS. 71.112.251.130 (talk) 00:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but you are missing my point. You see, it does not matter whether or not the Blood Ravens win the Karava conflict. What matters is that IF they win, the narrator mentions something about their force commander "aquitting" the chapter. This implies that there was a serious blemish on their record, perhaps due to the evidence that Lukas Alexander uncovers if he wins in the Dark Crusade.

Well, I do believe that this matter is indirectly addressed in the comic "The Horror", which mentions the fact that the Blood Ravens were descended from a heretic Chapter. I think that this fact is generally known and can be hinted at by the arrival and aid of Inquisition Forces on Kronus. Lukas Alexander lost, therefore he recovered no information. However, when it is mentioned in Soulstorm, I believe that Lukas Alexander probably lodged a complaint with the Segmentum Command, prompting a sort of "tag" being put on the Blood Ravens for acting close to way of a heretical Chapter to which they were possibly linked to through their founding. Leonnatus (talk) 05:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, but remember, in the end cutscene for the Blood Ravens, it says that the Inquisition approached the Blood Ravens for attacking an Imperial Regiment, but the leaders of the chapter managed to squirm their way out of trouble. If that is the case, then why would they have to "aquit" themselves in Soulstorm?Fusion7 (talk) 01:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

True, true. I think, then, that it's the honor thing; Astartes definition of Honor is very radical. That idea shows up frequently. Also, I have just read an excerpt from the upcoming Dawn of War 2 novel, and apparently Davian Thule fell from the grace of some secret circle whatnot. Perhaps they felt that they had to aquit themselves "from" themselves. And Indrick Boreale may have done so. We've also got to remember that the BR were probably already suspect, due to the rash actions of Gabriel Angelos affiliating with the Eldar-however, this is only to be if we accept Goto as canon, which very little people do. Leonnatus (talk) 19:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

...If I may add to this? The Dawn of War 2 campaign gives some information in a side mission, indicating that the Blood Ravens lost the Kaurava conflict, badly. That... probably works as verification that Soulstorm does in fact take place in the timeline. -- Wakuseino (talk) 06:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, NOW the pieces of the puzzle are falling in place. The thing is, it seems they keep these timelines deliberatly vague.Fusion7 (talk) 18:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually the Blood Ravens lost half the chapter in Kaurava along with the Force Commander Indrick Boreale. So when the Nids attacked their recruiting worlds the Blood Ravens that were engaged in the conflict is no more than 400 marines. Angelos controls the 3rd company, that's 100 marines arriving late and half the chapter perished in Kaurava.

It's stated by one of your sergeants that "it weights heavily on [his] concious that we failed [Thule] at Kaurava", which to me means that the Blood Ravens won the Dark Crusade canonically, but were defeated at Kaurava.

Article rewrite

We need help to add more information to the article such has "GamePlay", "Development", "Marketing and release", "Story" and other misc information. --SkyWalker (talk) 06:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC) The article could also use some discussion on the DRM limitations of the game. Specifically that Steam connection is required to play any part of it, including the single-player campaign. It could be argued that this renders the `internet connection required for product activation` misleading. Internet connection is required for both single and multiplayer games.Haldane3 (talk) 10:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but misleading information that could hurt sales of this product clearly don't belong in an Wikipedia article. Furthermore DRM is a necessary step in protecting the consumer of PC games from himself. If you copy or resell your game you are destroying the PC as a gaming-platform (and it's illegal).87.161.64.35 (talk) 22:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Unit and Ability List?

Do we want to include a section with either a list or summary of the units, and perhaps the units' abilities? We could start a new section for it, or include it in the Gameplay section. That would be interesting to people right now as the release date for the game looms. -- FerociousBeast (talk) 21:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Familiar yourself with video games guidelines. --SkyWalker (talk) 04:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

A more helpful approach would be to state your point and then provide a link to back it up. -- FerociousBeast (talk) 13:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Has i said read the link. Adding Units, Ability, Weapons, Upgrades, Builidings and misc is a game guide and can not be added. For rest read the guidelines above.--SkyWalker (talk) 16:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, according to your link, Age of Mythology is a good example of an article done to your link's specifications. And AoM has sections summarizing the units and buildings in the game. -- FerociousBeast (talk) 17:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

That is because the article is well referenced. If you can find a reliable references for all the units then it is possible for you create your very own unit guide.--SkyWalker (talk) 00:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

which brings this whole argument to a moot point.--GundamMerc (talk) 12:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Windows LIVE achievments claim

In the start of the leading section there is a claim that this is the first widely available game to use the achievment system, however Grand Theft Auto 4 has been out about 3 months and uses it. 115.166.12.215 (talk) 08:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

No, the claim is that this is the first widely available, PC-exclusive, game to use achievements. Grand Theft Auto 4 is not PC-exclusive. -FerociousBeast (talk) 21:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Real-time tactics, not real-time strategy

Looking at the descriptions of both genres, it looks like DoW2 (at least the campaign mode) is an exclusively RTT game, not an RTS. 71.206.239.244 (talk) 05:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The campaign is more of a real-time tactics game but the multiplayer is a mixture of RTS and RTT. DOW2 really did a brilliant job in mixing the 2 genres and coming up with a solution that works. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.138.162.6 (talk) 04:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Relic describes their game as real time strategy. That's what they were shooting for, that's what they made. See Real time tactics for a definition of the subgenre of Real time strategy. Personally, I think the whole concept is predicated upon a geeky enthusiasm in the differences between strategy and tactics which is wholly un-useful in normal conversation or categorization. -FerociousBeast (talk) 01:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

What the company describes it as has no bearing on what it actually is. Quoting from the article on RTTs: "It is differentiated from real-time strategy gameplay by the lack of resource micromanagement and base or unit building, as well as the greater importance of individual units[1][2] and a focus on complex battlefield tactics." RTSs by contrast are described: "In a typical RTS it is possible to create additional units and structures during the course of a game. This is generally limited by a requirement to expend accumulated resources. These resources are in turn garnered by controlling special points on the map and/or possessing certain types of units and structures devoted to this purpose. More specifically, the typical game of the RTS genre features resource gathering, base building, in-game technological development and indirect control of units." It's pretty clear that DoW2 is not an RTS but an RTT. Definitely so in the single player, and at best a massively stripped down RTS in multiplayer. 164.107.200.228 (talk) 19:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Controversy?

So this article has a "controversy" section that has a whole one line of barely information. It's also a statement of fact and very non-controversial. I think this should be removed from the article or the section moved to somewhere else. The only way it should be there is if we expanded on it and made it show how it's controversial (which it's not, EB Games screwed up, end of story). So can someone shove it off to somewhere more useful, or otherwise kill it please. Thank you. DeMyztikX (talk) 01:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm inclined to kill it as well. -FerociousBeast (talk) 02:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Soundtrack

The soundtrack was recently officially released for free on Steam. Should we make note of that? Leonnatus (talk) 14:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Differentiating between Real Time Strategy Computer Games vs. video game ports--there's a BIG difference.

Because great game computers are very expensive and tend to be less popular amongst teens, I expect to find an unreceptive audience here, but I strenuously object to DoW2 being called a) "real time strategy" as even Games Workshop hailed this as a real time TACTICAL game (note:the letters RTS on the box would be the only good argument for calling this an RTS, but it's missing just about EVERY aspect of a RTS game, yet has wonderful RPG elements, excellent story line, and far more in common with turn based tactical games such as Jagged Alliance, X-Com, Silent Storm, et. al.) b) this, along with several other games, being referred to as video games because, as it was in this case, the game was originally programmed for the PC and only then *ported* over to video game systems. Calling it a video game is tantamount to calling Civilization a "video game" whereas I believe amongst those of us who were playing Civ I on our PC's back in 1991, you would have a HUGE number of computer gamers strongly bashing anyone who would deign to call Civilization a video game.

The only people who I believe would argue there is no difference between video games and computer games are generally a) women or b) people who've never played a computer game and seen the significant difference between the experience of playing such a game on a computer and then seeing the dreadfully wanting versions on the XBox, Playstation, et. al.

Now, I have no problem with people linking this to the real time strategy Wiki, but it simply is not a real time strategy game and people who are used to playing the Command and Conquer, Warcraft, Total Annihilation, SupCom et. al. who bought this expecting a real time strategy game would be sorely disappointed. It is, unquestionably, a Real time Tactical computer game. It is absolutely NOT a Real Time Strategy Video Game, which is what it's called in the first paragraph.

Before people get the impression I believe only computers can make a game playable, I would like to note I believe there are literally thousands of VIDEO games which were mindlessly playable on systems starting way back when with Intellivision and Atari, all the way through to SuperNes, Sega Genesis, and today's Playstation 3, Wii, and XBox360. These same games, when ported over to computers failed miserably. Why? Because, again, there's such a significant difference in the mindset of those who like computer games and those who like video games. People generally polarize to one or the other. Even as a teenager I was playing Wizardry on my Apple II 48 instead of space invaders on the Atari. Might and Magic, Ultima, and Bard's Tale are other titles I played as a teenager which in no way could ever be mistaken as video games.

I'm not certain this is where this discussion should be taking place necessarily, but it's the first place I've seen an obvious computer game (yes, I've played DoW2 on both the XBox AND the PC, and the XBox version, IMO, was terrible in comparison... irritatingly so with clunky controls) referred to as a video game. I would normally go ahead and just make the change, but I'm going to put this up for a week or so to see if anyone wishes to enter the fray before I do so. After which I will change this to being referred to as a Real Time Tactical game, referred to as a Real Time Strategy game by some. I will also change it to being called a computer game with video game system's ports available.

There's no reason I can see people should object to more specific terminology when referring to games today, as electronic gaming is an industry which, in and of itself, grosses and nets more than the Movie, Music, Book, and Television industries COMBINED! We differentiate between Movies, television series, and made for TV movies, and then further differentiate between the oodles of different genres within each of the above industries. Why we, as gamers, should have to settle with referring to EVERY game as EITHER a computer game or a video game (as a fair argument has been made video game systems are actually computers made with a very limited scope of operation). Instead we should, as a fandom, come to an agreement there should be more differentiation between the many many ways we as gamers are capable of coming up with to categorize each game and each system. Chief (talk) 21:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Games Workshop may have referred to it as a RTT, but they didn't make it. Relic did. And Relic called it a RTS. DoW 2 has not and never will be for the XBox, or any other platform other than the PC. That was repeatedly stated by Relic over and over. Battle for Middle Earth was, maybe you're getting the two mixed up. Leonnatus (talk) 03:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

So your saying it doesn't work with the Xbox 360 ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.77.235.113 (talk) 19:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

It was all over the Community Forums. The Devs said no. I know of no one who has a working copy of DoW2 that they have rigged to work on an X-Box 360. Leonnatus (talk) 23:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

RTT

This crap is an RTT game.RELIC statemets should not be taken as a definition. There is no counter argument to this.You can say what you want,this is an RTT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.100.48.160 (talk) 23:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I would like to note that this game is better defined under the first paragraph of Real time tactics as well the introduction of Real-time Strategy. As these are genres of games and not literal definitions of the material present, I would suggest Dawn of War II be appropriately changed to the Real-time tactics genre, ignoring the statements from Relic, the makers of the game. ForTheLose (talk) 03:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Campaign of this game is TRPG (tactical role playing game) to the some extend, but multiplayer clearly is an RTS, because it has bases, you can build turrets, power generators, realay beacons and units. There is also minimal resource micromanagement, you must capture power nodes and as mention, you can build power generators near them. This game can't be described as something one, Dawn of War II mixes TRPG and RTS with bigger attention on tactics. --81.29.30.221 (talk) 13:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

This isn't an RTS i don't know what game your playing but in DOW2 multiplayer there is no option to build anything other than units. Sparkler99 (talk) 20:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Last Stand

'Last Stand' is not a new expansion. It is a game mode that is being introduced in a future update of the original game. The only announced expansion is Chaos Rising. Read this [4] 128.171.20.75 (talk) 03:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Factions and Heroes

Should we include info on the game's different factions and hero units? Pages on other strategy games do this, though some don't. Is there a system for that is or is it just set up the way the creator the article wants it? FiercedeitylinkX —Preceding unsigned comment added by FiercedeitylinkX (talk • contribs) 01:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Tau

Does anyone know whether you're allowed to use tAu in the game or not. You could in the first dawn of war.203.171.196.5 (talk) 09:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

this article needs an update

campaign have changed to co-op only and skirmish have been removed. please check the internet for more information.84.212.73.96 (talk) 18:24, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War II. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:03, 29 January 2018 (UTC)