Ted's trailer reactions: Dawn of War 3 cinematic trailer (2016)

Image source: http://venturebeat.com/2016/05/03/warhammer-40000-dawn-of-war-iii-announced-with-a-rain-of-corpses/

For the last 7 years, my favourite game has undoubtedly been the 2009 real-time-strategy game release Dawn of War II, a highly ordained sequel to the massively popular 2004 RTS Dawn of War and both based off of the in-depth and much-loved Warhammer 40,000 franchise.  I used to play DoW 2 daily and still partake in it regularly, it truly is a wonderful experience for someone who grew up loving the shit out of the Warhammer 40,000 universe and while I loved the original 2004 game I tend to prefer the 2009 sequel for its more company-level tactical-based combat with more precise actions that came out of THQ and Relic Entertainment's previous works on the 2006 World War 2-set RTS Company of Heroes.  This doesn't mean that the original 2004 game is bad at all, its really just down to personal taste and preference.

Regardless, this has been one of my favourite franchises in video games over the years and aside from the Dawn of War games, the peeps at Warhammer 40,000's Games Workshop have ok'd the making of some other great titles like the 3rd-person shooter Warhammer 40,000: Space Marine (2011) or the late 1990s Space Hulk games.  Therefore, I was a bit perplexed when the only significant releases after the last Dawn of War 2 expansion pack Retribution (2011) were crappy lane-defence games produced by third-rate driving game developers.  So Imagine my joy and nostalgic inner-fanboy going mental with convulsions when I saw and heard about the recent release for a cinematic announcement trailer for Dawn of War 3.

YouTube link for the cinematic trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gN8geCTlZOo

Now there are some problems with this trailer which I feel should only be right to go through before getting into why I'm so excited by this recent announcement.  First and most apparent is the fact that a cinematic trailer only really gives you some idea about the story of a game and never really reveals anything about the gameplay and thus there really isn't too much to know about the game in this trailer aside from what races from the Warhammer 40,000 universe will be in the game when it comes out.  I know this comes without saying as many have stated before about cinematic trailers, really I think one could make a solid argument from this point that cinematic trailers are pointless.  However, it does make for an interesting marketing tactic that will undoubtedly raise up buzz for the upcoming release and increase clicks on gaming websites like Gamespot or Joystick.  Therefore, it makes reasonable practical sense to release a cinematic trailer but I do feel a bit irritated by the fact that there is little to really know about the game from the simple fact that we haven't seen much of either the story or gameplay in Dawn of War 3 judging from this cinematic trailer.

The second major concern I have about this trailer is more of a subjective and personal one but I do think it is worth taking up to some extent.  One thing that has defined the best RTS titles over the years is an abundance of several and varied armies and/or races to play with throughout the game.  This in particular has been something prevalent with the previous two Dawn of War games with the original game having 8 races to pick from after its third and final expansion pack Soulstorm (2008) marking it out as a highly diverse and varied title with many gameplay styles.  Therefore, I was a bit pissed off that judging from what I've seen in the cinematic trailer for Dawn of War 3, only 3 races at first seem to be the eldar, orks and Imperial space marines and that unlike the first two games, the first iteration of this one will not start off with at least four races.  I suppose this game has been one in the making for a long time but I would hope that they would at least stick true to the inherent variety of the franchise up to this point.  It also galls me that an RTS in this day and age would include such a small start to its content but to be fair, the cinematic trailer really doesn't reveal too much about the gameplay which could end up covering up for all this and ensure that this becomes a moot point.

The only other real major concerns I have around the trailer have come out of official statements made by Relic and Game Workshop in the wake of the trailer as more and more information has filtered out.  For one, despite the fact that the companies have not revealed the release date of Dawn of War 3 there is a possibility that it may be revealed in the next several months but I am hoping the date will be sometime before late 2017.  Look, I can be patient but I really do not want to be kept long for this.  Is this down to fanboyism?  Yeah, probably but I really can't help it.  The last main concern I have is that the single-player campaign is apparently going to be an interwoven story in a gameplay sense with each race generally playing through the same campaign.  Now if they do what was done in Dawn of War: Dark Crusade (2006, yeah, 2006 was a great year for RTS titles) and have all the races in the game play through the campaign but play with their own specific narratives then I won't really mind but considering the sheer focus on story that was so prevalent in DoW2 it does strike me with a bit of concern that such a centralised story may not come into play as much as it has done in the previous games.  I could be getting overly-worried about this and like I said above, the gameplay could easily make up for this in an abundance of enjoyment and good design but I guess I'll just have to wait and see.

So what is there good about this?  Everything else.  No really.  Much like a Sainsbury's sausage, onion gravy and mash potato ready meal served with some beans and peas and a can of Stella Artois after coming home from an 8 hour shift as a kitchen porter (something I have experience of believe me), I'm more than willing to accept the nourishment and good points of this trailer over any of the misgivings I have about it.  Do these misgivings play into my opinions about the upcoming release?  Of course and they never will stop doing so until I actually play the game but I really can't deny my own nostalgic joy about the announcement of DoW3's upcoming release.  Sure I am being bias about this but I really can't help it too much.  At the very least I can tell you I am just giving my honest opinion on this trailer and the issues surrounding it and that's all I can really do in this situation.  Sorry if I am not objective enough for your liking here as I may have been with my last trailer reaction but its just the way your uncle Ted operates.  At the very least I can say that this title is going to get my support, as bias as that support may be.

So as always, I hope you lovelies have had as much fun and informative nourishment from this blog as much as I have had researching, editing and writing it and until next time I wish you all best wishes and remember to have fun, stay safe, don't do anything I wouldn't do and I'll be seeing you all on the battlefield!

Respectful disagreement #2: Why bad endings to games do not always ruin them

Ok, so undoubtedly since the rise of story-driven game titles in the late-1980s particularly with the Castlevania and Legend of Zelda franchises, there have been those few special games for whom many are enthralled by until they get to the ending and are crushingly disappointed either by the final boss or the conclusion to the games' overarching story.  Perhaps the greatest examples of this in recent years are Mass Effect 3 (2012), Halo 2 (2004) and the Final Fantasy XIII trilogy (2009-2014).  Now for the first two I have to say that the anger towards their controversial endings was somewhat misguided.

Out of these three examples, Mass Effect 3, the final segment of the massivley popular trilogy of space-adventure epics featuring what many call one of the best video games of all time (Mass Effect 2 (2010 for PC & Xbox 360, 2011 for PS 3)), probably gains the most disproportionate hatred for its admittedly pretty weak ending.  Now don't get me wrong, while I didn't perhaps get into the franchise as a whole (with exception to the final level of the first game and most of the second game of course), I do freely admit and firmly beleive that the three not-all-that-dissimilar endings of the third game were pretty bad and didn't represent the full potentional of how the developers and designers could go about ending this truly epic storyline.  I don't think its as much a mishandling of the material as it was a struggle to find a suitably epic ending to the story of the franchise and while the epic aspect in this case was more than acheived, the actual excecution and meaning of it was cluttered, flimsy and each different ending on its own and also compared to each other were pretty weak compared to the enticing end of the third game and the heart-stoppingly action-packed ending of the second one.

But did the ending of Mass Effect 3 really ruin the game as a whole?  Okay sure, the ending was a pile of crusty wank but the game itself was still suitably epic up until that point, the gameplay was almost as good as in Mass Effect 2 and the impact of your choices in previous games as well as in the current one had a deep, meaningful set of both moral and philosophical implications to them.  Regardless of how you look at it, even with the shitty ending, Mass Effect 3 still works as a game and experience.  Think of it like having the best 3-course meal you've ever had but when the waiter offers you an after-dinner mint he/she instead sucks on an imperial mint for 30 seconds then spits it at you but then apologises for doing so.  ....Ok...that metaphor might be a bit extreme but you get my point.  People applauded the game itself for staying true to its predecessors while allowing for a more epic story and more difficult and challenging circumstances within which the refreshingly simple game mechanics could truly flourish.  Combining this alltogether with the series' recurring aspect of allowing decicions made in playthroughs of previous games to impact the story of the current one and you have am experience that is emboldened by so many well received strengths even going so much as to include.

Of course this is just the opinion of one person, a man who in fact has never been any good at any of the Mass Effect games.  Regardless, even as soemeone who sucked as bad at playing these games as Square-Enix are at convincing everybody that the Final Fantasy XIII trilogy was worth any good will, I have to admit that the story of the Mass Effect series is something so bombastic, large and epic that you have to admire it for its scope as it just manages to elevate itself above the crappy ending at the end of the thrid game.  Yet sometimes there might be a bad ending which when looked at closer, actually reveals a clever thematical and narrative ploy to raise the plot of a game from average to hihgly enthralling.  Take a step forwards, one of the most famed and popular FPS games of all time, Halo 2.

Image taken from: http://www.avwproductions.com/techheads/wordpress/why-halo-2-is-the-greatest-game-of-all-time/

To all extents and purposes, one could just as easily argue that the Halo Series (2001-) has as much of an epic storyline and plot as that of the Mass Effect games.  In Halo as in Mass Effect, we follow an elite corps (in this case the mighty spartan marines) as they combine with the united forces of either humanity or an allied galaxy to fend off the advances of an enroaching alien speacies hellbent on total annihalation.  I was perhaps never that into the Halo games as much as my two best freinds Brendan and Sam (aka Thunderrunner487 and Telescuffle respectivley) perhaps best shown by how a good chunk of their millenial memorabilia is tied to the original Halo trilogy while mine was tied to games like Spyro: Year of the Dragon (2000) or Company of Heroes (2006).  Regardless, I have to admire the Halo series for combining its likewise bombasitc and enthralling storyline with its refreshingly simple gameplay and sometimes very relatable characters particularly in games like Halo Reach (2010).  It is perhaps not too hard then to see why the series as a whole has gained such a widespread following in the mainstream gaming public and why my freind Sam (aka Telescuffle) has pointed out to me that his favourite game in the franchise to this date is Halo 2.

Image taken from: http://halo.wikia.com/wiki/File:Halo_2_028.jpg

But what about the ending to Halo 2 that has so many people up in a tizzy when they talk about it?  After all, the game was released in 2004 and so its been quite a while since the initial controversy about Halo 2's ending has died down.  If you don't know however, Halo 2 ends with Master Chief (the main character of the series) boarding a battered warship headed towards a swirling sapce battle around planet earth asked by the character Admiral Hood what he is doing before Cheif calmy replies "Sir, finishing this fight" as the game then fades to black after which the credits roll.  In a purely thematical sense, I can perhaps see why people were pissed by this ending when the game first came out as it is indeed very abrupt, leaves little closure on the story of the game individually and leaves us unsure about the fate of Master Chief other than his oncoming glory in the fight that he's yet again heading towards. 

Now to be fair, this would be frustrating to a first time player.  However, contextualised within the game itself and the original trilogy as a whole, the ending to Halo 2 makes a twisted sort of sense.  The game itself rides narrativley upon the idea that humanity is in a desperate struggle with the alien forces known as the covenant and the flood,  in order to defeat this threat, Master Cheif and the player are repeatedly thrown into harsh and bloody missions throughout with many citing Halo 2 as having some of the hardest in the franchise to date.  Therefore, the openess of the ending leaves it up to the player to realise that as the initial threat has been dealth with, there is still much to do and it is only up to Master Chief (and in turn the player, thus creating a narrative connection between Chief and the player) to deal with it and thus 'finish the fight'.  This in turn creates an interesting advertising and narrative hook as 'finnishing the fight' was the general tagline of Halo 3 (2007) resulting in a strong narrative link between the two games.

Image taken from: http://www.avwproductions.com/techheads/wordpress/why-halo-2-is-the-greatest-game-of-all-time/

Now personally, my favourite game in this particular franchise will always be the orignal Halo: Combat Evolved (2001) which revolutionised the idea of the modern FPS after the era of Doom and Quake and before Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare (2007) came along years later and came to dominate the culture of modern FPS games in the 7th game generation.  Arguably, next to games like COD4, Unreal Tournament (1999), Serious Sam (2001), Resistance 2 (2008), Battelfield Bad Company 2 (2010), Halo: Combat Evolved and Halo 2 showed that simple gameplay combined with a straightforward plot intertwined with large scale situations and stakes and threatening situations that challenged your abilities as a gamer and hero could not only create for a grabbing game that shook you to your bones but drew you into its gameplay and story to play more and pay more attention to it.  I've certainly experienced this with some series that I've had alot to complain about such as the original Dawn of War (2004-2008) quadrilogy or the Supreme Commander games (2007-2010) but Halo 2, out of most of the games that seemed to define late-6th generation storytelling and gameplay acheived this more than most as Halo 3 went on to become one of the most highest-grossing games of all time and one of the best reviewed and most popular FPS games of recent memory.

So with Mass Effect 3's ending expained in a technincal sense and the ending of Halo 2 explained from a standpoint of narrative storytelling and player interraction through gameplay and dialogue, where does this leave the also controversial ending of Final Fantasy XIII developed by Square Enix and released in 2009?

Image taken from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Fantasy_XIII

Now in comparison to the Mass Effect  and Halo series, with exception to Final Fantasy VI (1994) and Final Fantasy IX (2000), I've never had a huge amount of interest in the Final Fantasy (1987-) series as a whole or even for most of the individual games.  However, as a (for the most part) indifferent game to the franchise, I can understand the attraction of the series within itself as a whole and within the individual games thanks to the enthralling RPG elements, the usually epic storylines, the engaging struggles of the characters and the inclusion of some of gaming's most iconic and nastiest vilains like Final Fantasy VI's Kefka or VII's (1997) Sephiroth. 

But anyway, enough contextualising, what about Final Fantasy XIII's ending.  Well, this might sound bad, but I really can't remember much about what the ending was like or what it represented.  This might stem from how unengaging the plot of the game was or how much I disliked the main protagonist Lightning or how much the game seemed to drag later on or how disinteresting the main vilain was but I really can't remember much about this game's ending.  At the end of it all (a nice little reference to Final Fantasy Dissidia's (2008) final boss there for you all) Final Fantasy XIII is a perfect example of not involving your player through some means or another (for me it was mainly the grinding length of the game and the unlikeable main protagonist) which in turn kills the involvement of a player in the game's ending and story.  Now I've played good games with one or two aspects that have killed the prospect of a good ending such as Darkstar One's (2006) ending being incredibly cheesy and going against the style and ethos of the game or Max Payne 3's (2012) ending which was severley weakened by the suprising unlikeability of the main character souring the ending.
However, whereas those games were still enjoyable for the most part and were only partially soured by their endings, I didn't enjoy Final Fantasy XIII for the most part, wasn't drawn into the main protagonist's main struggle despite their shortcomings like in Darkstar One and as a result, combining this with the excrutiating length of the game and its disgustingly sequel-bait ending, I couldn't bring myself to remember or care much about the ending after I finished slogging though the game as a whole.  Subsequently, when I found out how much of a sequel-bait ending the game had with the onset of overly-expensive paid-DLC and a trilogy that not even the most devout Final Fantasy fans asked for, I felt deflated and disinterested by Final Fantasy XIII's ending.

As a result, I think that the evidence is pretty clear from looking at these three games that it isn't a bad ending that ruins the game, its a bad ending combined with either a bad or unengaging game that ruins the game.  Mass Effect 3, despite the ending that essentially went against the entire series and all it stood for, did not ruin the overall experience either I nor many gamers had with the game itself.  On top of this, the prospect of cheap DLC soon after the game's release that sorted out some of the narrative problems of the ending sweetened the deal a bit and besides, from my viewpoint at least, I would argue that the ending of Mass Effect 3 was not just down to bad writing but perhaps a great deal of admirable but misplaced overambition.  Halo 2 in turn is perhaps a greater example of misinterpreted storytelling a-la the ending to Dawn of War 2: Chaos Rising (2010) that tried something ambitious, pulled it off, but could've perhaps done with being a bit clearer and more elloquent as telling from the general reaction to it.  Final Fantasy XIII in turn is an example of how even with great production value and design as well as graphics, a game that does not involve the player on a personal level or interest them as such will fail regardless of the ending and even if the ending is good (which it wasn't in this case), the game will still struggle to rise above it's flaws, especially if it's a poor follow up to a series of very popular games.

But hey, even if you still don't get it, let me sum it up to you guys with this analogy.  Mass Effect 3 and Halo 2 are like classy dinners with great service and music where the starter is a 5 star meditteranean tapas and the main course is a perfectly seasoned and well cooked moussaka but the pudding is just a bag of jelly beans served on a paper plate.  Final Fantasy XIII on the other hand is a takeout from a crappy 2-star chicken 'n'chips shop where your order is late and wrong, the only music on hand is the same 5 tunes all day from Capital F.M radio and the server has left a hair in your vanilla milkshake when you clearly asked for chocolate.

Ted R's Top Tens #3: My top ten strategy game units

Okay, compared to the last two top tens that I did, this one might cause a little more one-sided arguments considering the fact that its my personal opinion compared to the last two which were based solely on historical fact.  Regardless, this is a top ten that I've thought about for a while considering the fact that as mentioned before; 1) I like lists (not to sound like Brick from Anchorman (2004) or anything), 2) despite my disdain for individualism I believe that it's important to express one's opinion and 3) if there's one genre of games I like more than adventure, racing, FPS or puzzle then its RTS (Real-Time-Strategy).

Naturally in games like these there always has to be a core plan in your mind regarding how you aim to take down your opponent and at the core of this is usually one or a select few units playable through a certain army/faction that express your strategy style.  For me this can vary from slow-moving and methodical attritional strategies to swift strategies tuned to keep the enemy off-balanced and disorganised.  So without any further delay ladies, gentlemen and fellow RTS enthusiasts I present to you my top ten strategy game units.

#10: The Goliath from Company of Heroes (2006)

Now this first unit is more so a unit to simply fuck around with rather than build a strategy around.  Don't get me wrong, it does huge amounts of damage in single hits, scares the crap out of the enemy and is hard to spot on a war-torn battlefield thus making it great for sabotage and ambushes.  In particular, the Goliath which features in the legendary World War Two strategy game Company of Heroes is a remote controlled box on fast-moving treads that the German army deployed during the later stages of WW2 when it was clear that they had to start fighting dirty and using terror as more of a tactic in order to have a chance of turning the tide against the Allies in France and Italy and the Russians in Eastern Europe.

In the war, the Goliath didn't have a huge deal of success as it did have some psychological impact but never really changed the strategic prospects of the German army.  In Company of Heroes however this is quite the opposite.  In the game, the Goliath is fast to move around, except around corners, and so can be used to pounce upon gun positions, slow-moving mobile artillery or columns of infantry and inflict crippling amounts of damage by blowing up right in the enemy's face.  The only two big problems with the Goliath however is that 1) it has pathetically low armour and so can be destroyed at a distance by even lightly-armed scouts and 2) its nastily expensive at 125 ammo points just to build one.  However, if you like using the Germans in Company of Heroes and enjoy scaring the shit out of your opponent then this is the unit for you.

#9: Amphibious tanks from Supreme Commander (2007)

Now sometimes when you face a certain problems you will need someone or something that can sustain a multitude of helpful roles in any number of given situations.  In the world of strategy games when I think about things such as these, amphibious tanks from the sci-fi RTS Supreme Commander are one of the first things to pop up into my mind.  The good thing about Supreme Commander is that all four armies playable in the game including the extra one added on in the expansion pack Forged Alliance (2007) share the basic premise for many of their units albeit with different weapons and capabilities so there's not a great deal of preference between any of them for me (although I do like playing as the Aeon Illuminate allot). 

In particular, I like amphibious tanks allot above other ground vehicles in Supreme Commander due to the fact that whereas other tanks have to be transported over water via vulnerable and unarmed air transports in order to attack a river stronghold or an island, amphibious tanks, as you probably can guess, just go gliding straight over the water like Moses if he had been encased in armour and had his head replaced with a gatling cannon.  Therein lies one of the problems of the amphibious tank however, as it is armed with a weapon that performs well against low-flying aircraft and infantry, its kind of weak in head-to-head fights with other tanks and gun turrets.  But regardless of this, if you build an armada of these things and send them ashore on the enemy's bank with heavier tanks coming in from the air then you will be sure to inflict some nasty damage on the enemy.

#8: Graal Knights from Rome Total War: Barbarian Invasion (2005)

Now what is slower than David Cameron's so-called rebuilding of the British economy?  That's right!  Internet explorer with good connection and the Graal Knights.  In the context of what the term "cavalry" stands for actually, these heavily-armoured horsemen from the first Rome Total War expansion pack are an oddity in the sense that 1) they are not swift and quick, 2) they are not hard to hit with archers and such and 3) they look more grim and imposing with their grey armour and green cloaks with gold face-masks rather than the chivalrous image painted of most cavalry throughout history.  However, despite the fact that the Graal Knights are slow as hell and super-expensive to employ as mercenary bands in the campaign mode, they are an in-game investment worth making.

The main reason for this is the sheer shock value and gravitas that these horsemen have in the attack and even in the defence as both they and their horsemen are heavily armoured in scales of metal thus giving them greater weight and therefore striking power.  What's more is that as these warriors are so heavily-armoured, if you give them enough defence upgrades then they will probably be able to withstand any missile-fire from the enemy.  So despite the high cost, small unit number and rarity of these human tanks they are a force to be feared by any unsuspecting infantry and artillery.

#7: Assault squads from Dawn of War II (2009)

Much like the Total War games, the Dawn of War II series forces players to usually form a strategy that combines a mixture of close-quarters-combat units and ranged units in balanced harmony to rip the enemy to shreds like a bloodier and more fleshy version of Mattersons fridge raiders.  As for the assault squads available to the Space Marines in the Dawn of War II series however, they combine the best of both worlds sporting a vicious array of weapons such as electrified claws, electrified axes and chainsaw swords (yeah you heard me right, fuckin' chainsaw swords).  

This is because of the fact that despite mainly concentrating on melee weapons, the assault marines are equipped with jump packs allowing them to traverse rubble-strewn battlefields while scattering enemies like scattered M&M's of death when the assault squad lands.  Thereupon after being scattered like the pieces of a collapsing Jenga tower, the enemy are then set upon by the blades of your assault marines who can also jump away to safety if aforementioned scattered enemy is too strong to overcome.  The one problem with these unsubtle knights of the sky is that they die easily due to slightly lighter armour compared to other space marine infantry but make up for this with their mobility and cheap production costs.

#6: Sonic dolphins from Command and Conquer: Red Alert 3 (2008)

Okay, this is a weird one, whereas the last few entries included ideas for army units that at least sound halfway respectable, this one just sounds like a navy officer and maritime naturist got stoned then drew up stupid ideas for weapons for the navy before passing out from idiocy and the ridiculous levels of weed smoke in the air.  But how are these plucky little maritime dolphins with sonic cannons attached to their backs in a battlefield situation?  Actually they're not all that bad despite poor armour and lack of a concept that can be taken seriously.

In fact if you spam enough of these leaping and tenacious little critters then you'll be able to take down enemy shipyards and battleships while also making the enemy feel like the bad guy in a knock off version of Free Willy (1993) but with dolphins and sexualised support characters instead of whales and a stoic native American that looks oddly allot like an older Steven Segal.  Regardless, combining the novel weapons that these plucky little creatures pack, a cute demeanour and noise and a low production cost they are definitely worth employing in any navy that doesn't mind looking like complete fucking idiots.  Just to be off topic, why the HELL does Free Willy have three freaking sequels?

#5: AT-AT's from Star Wars: Empire at War (2006)

Now even for people who don't really play RTS games but at the very lease recognise popular culture, this entry should be recognisable and obvious why its here to allot of people particularly those who enjoyed Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back (1980).  In the Star Wars universe, the galactic empire makes use of the heavily armoured, huge and slightly camel-shaped known as All-Terrain-Armoured-Transports to transport their infantry while scaring the enemy shitless with their huge and thunderous gait and huge blaster cannons.

Naturally, because of their huge size, power and diversity of roles, the AT-AT's in Empire at War are quite expensive to build and on top of this they find it as tricky to shoot close-up targets as it is for a Dyslexic with a fear of numbers to solve algebra equations.  Yet regardless of high costs and poor mobility, the AT-AT is rated among the top 5 on this list due to its devastating firepower, psychological impact of making opposing players crap their breeches and also being able to deploy squads of infantry with no population cap consequences.

#4: Redeemer from Command and Conquer 3: Kane's Wrath (2007)

Come on Ted, again with the huge and overpowered super-walkers?  Well readers, despite your misgivings, there are a good few reasons why the Redeemer is on this list.  Firstly, it is the first super-only-build-once unit that I only had to build once to win a campaign mission in a Command and Conquer game but aside from this and much like the AT-AT, the Redeemer has a multitude of different roles to fulfil.  Whereas the AT-AT is limited in these roles however to a certain extent on account of the fact that it can only act as a line-breaker, tank/building killer and transporter of support infantry.  The Redeemer can top this by also crushing enemy vehicles and infantry as well as sporting self-repair domes, rocket launchers, machine guns, flame-throwers and chemical waste-throwers depending on what infantry squad you choose to garrison the mighty walker with when you first build it.

Again however as with the AT-AT, the Redeemer is agonisingly slow and so is vulnerable to WMD's, aircraft and hit-and-run tactics equipped with anti-tank weapons.  Furthermore, the build time of 50 seconds means that if you mean to build this multi-purpose walker then you'd better be pinning the enemy down with counter-attacks or build so many gun turrets around your base that you call it a homage to the fortress of Verdun.  Still, if you're like me and can live with the occasionally slow unit that has enough fire-power to level an entire regiment of tanks single-handedly then the mighty and indomitable Redeemer is a unit for you.

#3: Rangers from Company of Heroes

Again with a unit from Company of Heroes?  I know, I know.  Look, while there is no doubt that this WW2 RTS is one of the best if not THE best of its kind then there is a chance that references to it in such things as top tens will be notably frequent.  Yet still, I can't help but not ignore the might of these fearsome American shock troops that were immortalised by famous feats during WW2 such as the freeing of many prisoner camps in the Philippines in 1945, the crushing of German forces in Western Sicily in 1943 and the sterling efforts made by these brave men in the fateful D-day landings on the 6th June 1944.

As you would expect from assault troops, these tough yanks are capable of wielding a multitude of weapons and come in default when you spawn them with a pair of bazookas and four rifles.  However, for 100 ammo points you can upgrade these fellows with sub-machine guns and make them into truly fearsome assault troops.  Admittedly, it can be a slog to push all the way up the infantry tech tree on one side for the Americans but it is worth it when you are rewarded with assault troops such as these that have a greater value than most infantry units in the game.  So be prepared, these plucky boys from the land of apple pie, liberty and really fucking awful reality daytime TV are a fearsome force on any map on Company of Heroes, so if you play as the Germans, you'd better have some machine guns and snipers handy.

#2: Imperial guard cavalry from Shogun 2 Total War:Fall of the Samurai (2012)

Yet again we have a unit with a multitude of handy roles on the battlefield ladies and gentlemen.  Yes I know I sound like a broken record at this point but these fearsome infantrymen on horseback are the cream of the crop of the mobile part of my force when I play as a pro-imperial clan in this marvellous expansion pack to Shogun 2: Total War.  Admittedly, all cavalry units in the Shogun 2 games can dismount from their horses and fight as grim foot sloggers as my beloved sharpshooters, imperial infantry and black bear infantry brigades can and therefore act as striking units but also assault units in a siege operation.  In particular, my favourite unit to perform this double task is imperial guard cavalry.

These elite troopers are basically the imperial guard of the Japanese emperor in the late 1860s on horseback so they have all the benefits of their foot-soldier counterparts by being able to hold the line and deliver volleys of fire in waves more rapid than most infantry regiments while being able to displace to a new position at short notice like someone with the runs rushing to the toilet after having eaten half a dozen lamb vindaloo curries.  The one drawback is that like cavalry throughout the Total War series, these soldiers number less men per-unit than infantry regiments do.  But being able to both deliver shattering volleys of gunfire to said enemy infantry and doubling this with the capability to run down fleeing enemies and artillery positions with alacrity means that imperial guard cavalry are more than capable of delivering savage amounts of damage in a multitude of different ways.

#1: The Flak 88mm 37 anti-tank & aircraft/artillery cannon from Company of Heroes

You're probably scratching your heads for a few reasons at this entry.  Why is another Company of Heroes unit so far up on this list?  Why is Company of Heroes so popular?  (I swear do not ask me that) Why is a static weapon beating more mobile units on this list?  Why does Vimto taste so danm tasty?  WHY, THE, FUCK, DOES, FREE WILLY, HAVE, 3 SEQUELS?!??!?!?!???  Again I could say that the Flak 88 is number one because it too fills a number of roles but that would be too easy.  So furthermore, I decided to put the unit at number one because 1) It can kill most American and British units in the game really easily and with only a few shots, 2) it fires as fast as a plate of pot brownies at a stoners meeting and 3) its one of the most iconic weapons used by the Germans in WW2.

In fact, most if not all tanks and aircraft used by the Americans, British and Soviets during the second world war must have, at some point, come up against this powerful and multi-purpose heavy weapon.  Not only that, but later in the war, the Flak 88 also became iconic and feared among allied troops as a quick-to-set-up artillery weapon that the Germans could use to pummel them with before vanishing into the safety of the distant hills.  The one problem with this mighty cannon in the game however is the fact that its cost for just building one is insane and will force you to spend your manpower and fuel points very wisely.  Still, if you want to instil gut-clenching terror in the enemy and turn entire armoured brigades into scrap metal then the Flak 88 will serve you well.  But seriously, protect it and use it wisely because it costs a fucking mint to make.

So there you have it, my top ten units in strategy computer games.  As may be the case with other players I tended to build this list on the basis of equal amounts of diverse roles, reasonable costs, power and manoeuvrability.  Tell me what you guys think of this list, what your favourite strategy game units are and suggest ideas for future top tens.

Until next time...shit... I forgot what to say.

Game Review #3: Dawn Of War 2 (released in 2009)

Ever since I started playing the Dawn Of War games I've had this odd little soft spot for the general storyline of Warhammer 40k.  I mean, I'm not into the monotonous tabletop game and confusing card game but the stories and ideas behind the whole WH40K universe are surprisingly captivating and interesting.

The story for this game is relatively simple yet quite enjoyable; you are an unnamed force commander of the Blood Ravens space marines sent to the home-sector of the Blood Ravens to help defend it from an invasion of Orks (a brutal, green-skinned race of savages with rough English accents).  After only a few battles on a desert and a jungle planet you suddenly discover that there are two other alien species assailing the sector as well.  The numberless Tyranids arrive suddenly to  attempt to devour the sector and the mysterious Eldar arrive to prevent this happening, by blowing up the sector.  Of course however, this being your home-sector.  you are thrust into battle after brutal battle against these enemies in an attempt to hold the sector until reinforcements arrive whilst also finding a way to destroy the Tyranids.

The best thing about Dawn Of War 2 is that in contrast to the four Dawn Of War games that preceded it, Dawn Of war 2 concentrates on the player wielding a few squads rather than a whole army.  In every mission in the campaign (except for one in the middle and one at the end) you are dropped into combat with your commander and a choice of 3 of your 5 other units.  The units you get are made up of; an infantry squad led by a bald guy, a scout squad led by a dude with a ridiculous robot eye, a heavy weapons squad led by an asshole, a jump pack assault squad led by a newbie and a massive heavy-armoured walker.  because you have such a small force to into battle with each time, you are forced to really think about what squad weapons load-outs and combos you want.  If you are facing an attacking mission then use swift-moving squads etc, so on so forth.

On top of that the difficulty level is a bit odd.  The first two difficulty levels are bloody easy but the top two are harder than a 10-year old Christmas cake.  But If you are having trouble doing a certain mission then simply do loads of side missions and unlock some powerful weapons (e.g. a hammer that can take down tanks or a plasma cannon).  That brings me to my next point: the campaign's side missions.  All in all there is roughly 20 missions as well as the many side missions that vary from 'blow up some generators' to 'kill a big alien in an arena'.  Whereas the main missions provide plenty of varying combat situations the side missions offer like 3 or 4, each of which is relatively similar to each other.  But aside from that, the campaign is tremendously fun and challenging. What also emphasizes this greatly is the fact that the space marines are genetically enhanced super-soldiers.  They are all hulking, heavily-armoured brutes but swift-moving troopers and because of this you get a real feel that you can just power through any enemy.  Now let me tell you, when you've got that feeling playing this game you literately can beat anything.

Another thing that makes Dawn Of War 2 so enjoyable is the great voice-acting.  I'll admit, I have seen better-voice acting in other games but the voice-acting in this one makes the characters all feel genuinley believable.  You even get a feeling that the Ork and Eldar characters are believable in the sense that the Orks are all incomprehensible brutes and the Eldar being massively arrogant.  The only race in the game that doesn't have great voice acting is the Tyranids, namely because they don't talk whatsoever but make up for it with some awesome unit names.

Don't get the feeling that the single-player is the only good thing about this game though.  The multi-player battles that you can join are truly entertaining, especially having been based around the legendary strategy game Company Of Heroes. One aspect of the game however, that is brilliance incarnate above all is the 'last stand' mode.  In the 'last stand' mode you choose a champion from one of the races in the game, select a weapons load out and then drop into an arena with two other players to fend off against wave after wave of enemies.  Seeing as how there is only 3 of you facing huge waves of attackers you really have to work as a team; when one of your buddies gets downed you help them up, you must co-ordinate your different fighting styles etc etc.
As with the campaign, in multilayer and 'last stand' the more you play the more goodies and unlocks you gain (as well as going up in the worldwide rankings).  This can be very satisfying especially when you've been slaving away at the multi-player mode for days on end and you finally gain your wanted upgrade after several slogging matches with other players.

I can't think of anything else, bad or good, to say about the game.  It forces you to time and co-ordinate every decision so carefully that you have to be paying attention to your whole force, not just one part of it. So I say "buy this game yer frigging gits" because in a genre of gaming that has been defiled so many times, Dawn Of War 2 is a strategy game that like Company Of Heroes and Red Alert 2 is fun no matter how many times you play it.