Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Warhammer Mark Of Chaos - How Is The RTS?

Posted by Hemos on Mon Jul 24, 2006 09:13 AM
from the something-fun-to-play dept.
Real Time Strategy (Games)
Steven Williamson writes "HEXUS.gaming's resident wood elf, Steven W, jumped at the chance to take the eye-opening trip to the Games Workshop HQ in Nottingham, home to the unique venue that is Warhammer World. What started out as a run-of-the-mill press event to see the latest real-time tactics videogame set in the Warhammer universe ended up capturing my imagination and quashing any previous hang-ups I almost certainly had about the people who played Warhammer and indeed the tabletop game that has spawned this latest PC game, Warhammer: MOC."
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Interviews: Ask the Warhammer Online Team 246 comments
In my recap of 2006's GenCon event, I was somewhat unkind to Warhammer Online. They are far better people than I am, thankfully, and the folks from Mythic Entertainment are extending a hand to the members of the Slashdot community. We have the chance to ask them any questions we'd like about Warhammer Online: Age of Reckoning. We'll look through your questions, and pass on the best to the development team at Mythic. We've gotten assurances that responses will be attributed, too, so you'll know who is answering what. Whether you're a Massive game fan or an old-school wargamer Warhammer Online has to have something to interest you, so ask away. One question per post, please, and we'll post the answers as soon as we get them.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Warhammer Mark Of Chaos - How Is The RTS? 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Slashdot editors. (Score:5, Funny)

    by gowen (141411) <gwowen@gmail.com> on Monday July 24 2006, @09:29AM (#15769453) Homepage Journal
    No punctuation sentence fragments very hard to underst

  • Where stereotypes touch reality (Score:5, Funny)

    by beaverfever (584714) on Monday July 24 2006, @09:29AM (#15769458) Homepage
    Is that the comic book guy [nohomers.net] on the bottom-left side of the photo [hexus.net]?

  • Hangups? (Score:4, Funny)

    by BlueCodeWarrior (638065) <steevk@gmail.com> on Monday July 24 2006, @09:32AM (#15769480) Homepage
    quashing any previous hang-ups I almost certainly had about the people who played Warhammer


    Hangups? What, people who play Warhammer are too nerdy for the slashdot crowd?

    Yeah, I play 4 different GW games, I'm sure that they will be much better than any Warhammer computer game, at least until Age of Reckoning comes out...

  • Headline Not Parse The Sense Can't Make (Score:5, Funny)

    by thatguywhoiam (524290) on Monday July 24 2006, @09:35AM (#15769501)
    For a second I thought the Warhammer series had turned into a manga, with a title like that...
    Alas, no. Just monday morning slashdot posts pre-coffee.

    Now, work am off to I do time no more waste.

  • Fluff piece (Score:2, Interesting)

    by bidule (173941)

    This guy is really enthusiastic. You have to dig through the dythirambic spew to get the meat. At least you can't have the standard GW step 3 aka buy tons of figurines at high cost. Yeah I skewed against them, cry me a river ;oP

    • At least you can't have the standard GW step 3 aka buy tons of figurines at high cost. Yeah I skewed against them, cry me a river ;oP

      Are you kidding? Since I don't play in league games I don't care about having official figurines. I've thought more than once about using knockoff battletech figures for space marines, or maybe eldar :P

      The fact that GW's rules do not permit use of non-licensed figurines in tournament games is all I need to know that they're in it only for the money.

    • Re:Fluff piece (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Eccles (932)
      At least you can't have the standard GW step 3 aka buy tons of figurines at high cost.

      Ebay is your friend here. Buy them, then sell them back on ebay when you're no longer interested for a similar price, even possibly a profit if you're a decent painter. Also, OOP figures often go for cheaper than the latest stuff.

      I bought a bunch of current model figs the other day, including $125 (list) in stuff still sealed in shrink wrap, and 50-60 other miniatures (mostly metal) for $100 including shipping. And a c

  • Skaven over Orcs? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Sapphon (214287) on Monday July 24 2006, @09:50AM (#15769609) Journal
    What on earth prompted the inclusion of Skaven (rats, basically, for those of you playing at home) as a 'core' race over Orcs? Unless there's been a significant change since I last visited my local GW, Orcs have a far bigger following.
    For the non-wargamers, this is akin to FIFA 2007 letting you play with Manchester City instead of Manchester United.

    I'm not against the idea (of dropping either Orcs or Man U. *grin*), I just find it curious. Won't they have the same problem as with Warhammer 40k: Dawn of War, when all the Imperial Guard players had a sook about not getting to play their army (except as a "Dog of War" in one mission)? Or is the percentage of people buying this game who actually come from the tabletop version so low that it just doesn't matter?

    • Re:Skaven over Orcs? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by swv3752 (187722) <swv3752 AT hotmail DOT com> on Monday July 24 2006, @09:54AM (#15769645) Homepage Journal
      Probably just wanted to avoid those claims that Warhammer is just a clone of Warcraft.
      • since warhammer's been around a lot longer, wouldn't the claim be that Warcraft is just a knock-off of Warhammer?
        • Well yes... but this is the internet.

          I sware if I hear that the Tyranids are a copy of the Zerg one more time I am going to start kicking people in the shins.

          Listen... Blizard... Fanboys... Blizard was heavly "inspired" by Games Workshop products (That have been around since the '70s and '80s) not the other way around. That doesn't make Warcraft and Starcraft "not good" it just makes them not at all origonal.
            • Random sidenote: the Penny Arcade forums (where I also hang around) are organizing a guild for the Warhammer MMO. That strip gave us the name: The Six Mouths! (Or "Da six moufs" for greenskins)

          • Not original? Sir, in what other game can I play a big, hairy cow with a hypnotising dance routine [youtube.com]?

            Seriously though, I think you're weighing content too heavily. Most "originality" is pretty much just rehashed ideas from long enough ago that most people have forgotten about the work that inspired them. The entire fantasy genre is pretty much a result of Tolkien, and he drew everything from Germanic, Norse, and Celtic/British folklore. And if you're going to call GW original, well:

            • Humans: Duh
            • Dwarves:
            • I never said that GW was totaly original. (They have developed a rather complete lore for both of there Game worlds, but I understand the "anything I don't like is stupid" attitude so I will let that go.) All I am trying to get across is that no matter how you look at it when you examine the facts Games Workshop did not and could not have copied Blizzard and it is a documented fact that Blizzard was inspired by Games Workshop products.
    • Who cares about those blimey orc players, when do we get Harlequinns!?
    • The Skaven were the only race which had miniatures included in Advanced Heroquest (a game that managed to combine all of the worst features of Warhammer and Heroquest), so there is some precedent for their inclusion in Warhammer spin-offs.
    • I'm not against the idea (of dropping either Orcs or Man U. *grin*), I just find it curious. Won't they have the same problem as with Warhammer 40k: Dawn of War, when all the Imperial Guard players had a sook about not getting to play their army (except as a "Dog of War" in one mission)? Or is the percentage of people buying this game who actually come from the tabletop version so low that it just doesn't matter?

      I'd never heard of Warhammer 40K until I acquired a um, uh demo (cough, cough) of the RTS Warham

      • It should be pointed out that they added the Imperial Guard with the expansion to Dawn of War. I'm just annoyed that they still haven't made Tyranids >:(.

        The upcoming second expansion (Dark Crusade) adds the Tau and Necrons. The developers have no current plans to include Tyranids because they are not convinced that their engine, as good as it is, can do them justice. Although in the interests of rounding things out, I wonder if we'll be seeing Dark Eldar at some point...

  • I used to work there (Score:5, Informative)

    by RembrandtX (240864) on Monday July 24 2006, @09:59AM (#15769673) Homepage Journal
    I used to work at GW. Both in the US, and across the pond [When they were located in Lenton, and for about 2 months after they relocated to the new building.]

    HUGE building, big spacemarine on the top. And, they have their own pub :P [seriously]

    Stuff like computer programs have ALWAYS been the bastard step child of the company. They are always Licence deals, and the company itself keeps creative control.

    Little known fact, Blizzard entertainment origially wrote 'warcraft' to be a RTS of warhammer. Approached (i think it was) Steve Godber on the board, for a licencing deal, and was turned down. Instead the deal was given to Mindscape, who made 'Shadow of the Horned Rat' which was a colossal failure.

    The guys at Blizzard were big Games-Workshop fans:

    Warcraft = Warhammer
    Starcraft = Warhammer 40k
    Diablo = DungeonQuest / HeroQuest

    I think the guys at Relic finally got it right, and that the Studio(At GW) finally got someone with a clue to make video game decisions. [although the MMORPG that they had going, died, but it seems that they moved the licence over to Relic .. so who knows.]
  • can someone explain the difference between a real time strategy and real time tactics game for me please? Are these names just synonyms, or is there an actual difference in the gameplay (like RPG vs. Action RPG)?
    • As I understand it, the difference is in the nature of the battle.

      RTT games are those where you start with a certian set of troops and have to guide those troops through an engagement. You don't normally get any more, and the game is usually over when that one battle is won or lost.

      RTS games are larger, or longer - they are made up of many battles. You build a base, create armies and have several battles.

      A good example of a RTS is Red alert, A good example of a RTT is Myth.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comma [wikipedia.org]
    • Sure. Strategy is the management of resources, buildings, troops and technologies. Tactics are the actions taken on the field of combat. Ever played Myth? [wikipedia.org] That is a hard-ass real-time tactical game. You start out with X number of troops, and that's all you get for the entire game. The army that understands how to use formations & terrain can beat a superior force that doesn't. [wikipedia.org]
    • Well the real time part is obvious (as in, not turn based), so the real issue is the difference between strategy and tactics.

      To oversimplify it, a military strategy includes all the logistics of war, including the acquisition and allocation of resources, management of supplies, as well as the global movement and positioning of troops.

      Tactics just refers to the specific maneuvering and commanding of troops engaged in combat.

      So basically, how you command your units at your base, and where you choose

    • Re:RTS vs. RTT? (Score:4, Informative)

      by SatanicPuppy (611928) * <<Satanicpuppy> <at> <gmail.com>> on Monday July 24 2006, @10:30AM (#15769928) Journal
      Tactics is units, movement, and positioning.

      Strategy is which units, resource management, and larger scale goals.

      It's the macro/micro thing. Strategy is the macro, the big picture. Tactics is the micro, where the rubber meets the road.
    • All of the above responses are correct, the problem is that RTS games have strategy elements in ADDITION to the tactics, rather than instead of the tactics.

      I have always thought "How can this be a Strategy game if I have to spend half an hour maneuvering my group to the right spot and then hand position each one in their deffensive positions?"

      A real strategy game (the kind Ive been waiting for) would allow you to define, create and maneuver Battalion level oragnizations, not individual units. Then the "Fact

  • Ummm.....? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Mayhem178 (920970) on Monday July 24 2006, @10:04AM (#15769695)
    Warhammer Mark Of Chaos How Is The RTS Homer no function beer well without.
  • I find it strange that they found the RTS awe-inspiring as opposed to the amazing MMO being made by the *soon to form* EA Mythic. [warhammeronline.com] I can't imagine the guys at GW not *more* behind the up-and-comming MMO, especially with some crazy guy [thewarband.com] promoting it from his phone, and the fact that they had issues with the previous developer and could use all the confidence re-building behind this new game.
    • No, the problem with the MMO is that Warhammer has never been about one guy running around on his own, it was always about big epic battles between armies LED by individuals. Can you imagine World of Warcraft where *every single player* has some 30 troops to command? An RTS is a lot more like GW's style, especially with the competitive multiplayer that can imitate the tabletop version as closely as any game type can.

  • It's about time... (Score:3)

    by ameoba (173803) on Monday July 24 2006, @10:28AM (#15769911) Homepage
    It's about time that people stopped calling RTSes stratergy games and started refering to them as tactical.

  • Games Workshop is the Microsoft of gaming (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Qbertino (265505) on Monday July 24 2006, @11:32AM (#15770415)
    Games Workshop is the Microsoft of the gaming world. Many RPG and Tabletop enthusiasts still have vivid memories of GW severly abusing their market power to push independent vendors to take minimum quantities of their stuff only to prepare and probe the market for their GW-only outlets in close proximity to these exact shops. This all started in the early to mid nineties.
    GW is a mean bunch of quasi-monopolists pushing overpriced stuff and comes at position #2 for killing of diversity in the Tabletop/Fantasy/RPG Market - right after Magic.
    As a result I don't buy stuff from them and encourage any Tabletopper to play game from other vendors. Warmachine from http://www.privateerpress.com/ [privateerpress.com] is a very neat (I'd say better) alternative to Warhammer. Check it out.
    • GW definitely has done (and is still doing) a lot to try to keep a stranglehold on the mini-gaming market. Privateer Press has put out an incredibly fun game in Warmachine, and now Hordes. Their models are at least equal, and in many cases (IMHO) better, than GW's stuff. But the real glory shines in the game play and setting.

      I think that back in the late 90's, GW was definitely in position to completely kill the mini-gaming market right there after the fall of Ral Partha (yeah, Reaper's always been around,
  • I've liked previous releases, but, as I boot 'Doze less and less, I'm wondering if they'll release GNU/Linux compatible versions.

    Granted, marketing in stores probably won't be realistic, but how about straight from the company?

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.