Starcraft 2 VS Dawn of War 2

Which RTS do you think will be better?

I voted DoW2, this is mainly because CoH is the best RTS I have ever played by miles, and since DoW2 is going to include alot of the elements of CoH, and Starcraft 2 is just going to include the same gameplay elements from Starcraft 1, I'm gonna say DoW2 will be miles better then SC2.

Starcraft 2 for online, Dawn of war 2 for the rest. ;)

I will buy both on the first day they come out. :)

Dawn of war 2 scans,

http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/4448/dowfe2.jpg

http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/7184/dow2kh8.jpg

http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/8660/dow3qr0.jpg

http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/4692/dow4zi1.jpg

http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/8397/dow5yn9.jpg

I voted StarCraft.

It is a game that i have played for a long time now. I cant get bored of it. A classic!

I predict that Bnet will continue to be better than Relic Onilne and Relic RTS's will continue to have vastly more complex game mechaics than Blizzards. Furthermore I predict that Blizzard's game will be more balanced both out of the box and after a year than Relic's.

Anyone want to bet against me? :-)

I predict that DOW 2 will get more awards and better reviews than SC 2, I also predict that SC 2 will out sell DOW 2.

Anyone want to bet against me? ;)

DoW 2 for sure. Not only is it going to improve upon CoH (easily one of my favorite RTS games, along with DoW) but it will update the 41st millenium we all know and love :)

Starcraft 2 looks like itll be good, but we all know its 40k-lite. I'll stick with the true dark future.

For the Imperium!

I predict that DOW 2 will get more awards and better reviews than SC 2, I also predict that SC 2 will out sell DOW 2.

Anyone want to bet against me? ;)

gogators4life

i doubt that, dow2 will be borrowing many of its elements from the first game. the first game dident receive any awards other than runner up and best expansion awards, which there were 2,3 expansions. receiving a bunch of awards but none really meaningful. doesnt mean much. I predict it will not get better reviews than sc2.

[QUOTE="gogators4life"]

I predict that DOW 2 will get more awards and better reviews than SC 2, I also predict that SC 2 will out sell DOW 2.

Anyone want to bet against me? ;)

Xxgood-timesXx

i doubt that, dow2 will be borrowing many of its elements from the first game. the first game dident receive any awards other than runner up and best expansion awards, which there were 2,3 expansions. receiving a bunch of awards but none really meaningful. doesnt mean much. I predict it will not get better reviews than sc2.

Company of Heroes' average score at Gamerankings.com: 94%

StarCraft's average score at Gamerankings.com: 93%

DoW2 is borrowing many elements from the first game and applying them to the Company of Heroes formula - a game that is quite clearly very, very well respected amongst the global RTS community. I'm not trying to start a debate as to whether StarCraft, Dawn of War or Company of Heroes is the better game, but since you brought it up, I'll go with it.

Based on company history, I think it's fair to say at the least that the two games have equal potential, and based on Relic's willigness to refine and evolve the genre (while Blizzard is stuck in 1998 ), Dawn of War 2 may very well offer a much more appealing experience for the RTS players of 2009, given that it will be an RTS of 2009, rather than an eleven year old game with a new engine and a few balance changes.

My vote will always go to Dawn of War 2, because it's Warhammer 40K, because it has squads, because it's Warhammer 40K, because it (presumably) has a territory-based resource system, and because it's Warhammer 40K. Also, because it's Warhammer 40K.

And don't forget that it's Warhammer 40K.

I feel ashamed that I've never played DOW :( Might have to get on the bandwagon before the sequel comes out...

Obviously Starcraft 2, but I say this because I started playing RTS with Warcraft I & II. When Starcraft came out it had a highly competitive multiplayer community that kept the game fun to play for many, many years. I haven't actually played Dawn of War, but I have played CoH, and I am not a fan of what they envision as a good RTS game. With the latest CoH game, they add even less to the series than before, and still fail to pull of a lasting experience for me personally.

Here's what I think this is about. If you prefer to watch the battles and things happening, more often than being required to micro-manage units or actually command the entire battle, then I think games like DoW2 or another CoH-style game will appeal to you more. If you prefer a game that requires a great amount of practice and has players who seem like they play professionally, I would go with Starcraft 2.

EDIT: I'm not trying to say you can't play DoW professionally, or competitively, I am assuming that most of the professional and competitive players are going to gravitate toward SC2. I think Starcraft has a balance that can't be mucked with, and it offers players the most fair way to compete.

[QUOTE="Xxgood-timesXx"][QUOTE="gogators4life"]

I predict that DOW 2 will get more awards and better reviews than SC 2, I also predict that SC 2 will out sell DOW 2.

Anyone want to bet against me? ;)

mfsa

i doubt that, dow2 will be borrowing many of its elements from the first game. the first game dident receive any awards other than runner up and best expansion awards, which there were 2,3 expansions. receiving a bunch of awards but none really meaningful. doesnt mean much. I predict it will not get better reviews than sc2.

Company of Heroes' average score at Gamerankings.com: 94%

StarCraft's average score at Gamerankings.com: 93%

DoW2 is borrowing many elements from the first game and applying them to the Company of Heroes formula - a game that is quite clearly very, very well respected amongst the global RTS community. I'm not trying to start a debate as to whether StarCraft, Dawn of War or Company of Heroes is the better game, but since you brought it up, I'll go with it.

Based on company history, I think it's fair to say at the least that the two games have equal potential, and based on Relic's willigness to refine and evolve the genre (while Blizzard is stuck in 1998 ), Dawn of War 2 may very well offer a much more appealing experience for the RTS players of 2009, given that it will be an RTS of 2009, rather than an eleven year old game with a new engine and a few balance changes.

My vote will always go to Dawn of War 2, because it's Warhammer 40K, because it has squads, because it's Warhammer 40K, because it (presumably) has a territory-based resource system, and because it's Warhammer 40K. Also, because it's Warhammer 40K.

And don't forget that it's Warhammer 40K.

Relic also made another game;

Company of Heroes: Opposing Fronts' average score at Gamerankings.com: 87%

and a bunch of other A-AA games (Homeworld 2, Impossible Creatures, Dawn of War and its two expansions)

WH40k? I like the setting but Relic is no longer capable of a story as good as Homeworld, DoW2 might have a better setting, but characters like Jim Raynor and Sarah Kerrigan are well know and peoples favorites, in contrast I have not seen the same popularity for Sindri or Captain MacKay

Single player; I enjoyed Homeworld and Company of Heroes, but I didn't much care for Dawn of War and Homeworld 2, but I did enjoy the SP of every Blizzard RTS game.

All those things you mentioned as benefits (squads and territory-based control) simply limit the strategy and micro options of the game, so I don't view them as positive. For example, I was playing CoH and found out that Relic balanced out the Stug Base rush strategy, because it didn't fit their idea of how the game should play, damn tossers, what should have been a quick game lasted for 40 minutes.

Anyways I already explained why StarCraft 2 is going to play differently than the original in another thread when responding to your post, just like how StarCraft was different that WarCraft 2 despite having similar base mechanics. If you think that StarCraft 2 is stuck in 1998 than you should play Close Combat III: The Russian Front (Dec, 31 1998') its amazing how nearly a 10 year old strategy game does squads, morale, elevation and projectile physics better than Company of Heroes, I would even argue that its ruleset handles destructible environments better, the explosions just don't look as pretty.

Edit: I second SKaREO

did everybody for get about Total War: Empires????

All three are pretty awesome, but I must admit I was never a Starcraft fan since I never got good enough to overcome cheap tatics.

Obviously Starcraft 2, but I say this because I started playing RTS with Warcraft I & II. When Starcraft came out it had a highly competitive multiplayer community that kept the game fun to play for many, many years. I haven't actually played Dawn of War, but I have played CoH, and I am not a fan of what they envision as a good RTS game. With the latest CoH game, they add even less to the series than before, and still fail to pull of a lasting experience for me personally.

Here's what I think this is about. If you prefer to watch the battles and things happening, more often than being required to micro-manage units or actually command the entire battle, then I think games like DoW2 or another CoH-style game will appeal to you more. If you prefer a game that requires a great amount of practice and has players who seem like they play professionally, I would go with Starcraft 2.

EDIT: I'm not trying to say you can't play DoW professionally, or competitively, I am assuming that most of the professional and competitive players are going to gravitate toward SC2. I think Starcraft has a balance that can't be mucked with, and it offers players the most fair way to compete.

SKaREO

I totally agree with this guy, Starcraft is really a game that u need to practice a lot to be any good, u cant just join a game and beat anyone, microing in sc takes a lot of skill and so does macro, u need to be able to do many things at once which is what makes SC a really tough but at the same time rewarding RTS.

did everybody for get about Total War: Empires????

All three are pretty awesome, but I must admit I was never a Starcraft fan since I never got good enough to overcome cheap tatics.

jrhawk42

Empire Total War is very different

[QUOTE="Xxgood-timesXx"][QUOTE="gogators4life"]

I predict that DOW 2 will get more awards and better reviews than SC 2, I also predict that SC 2 will out sell DOW 2.

Anyone want to bet against me? ;)

mfsa

i doubt that, dow2 will be borrowing many of its elements from the first game. the first game dident receive any awards other than runner up and best expansion awards, which there were 2,3 expansions. receiving a bunch of awards but none really meaningful. doesnt mean much. I predict it will not get better reviews than sc2.

Company of Heroes' average score at Gamerankings.com: 94%

StarCraft's average score at Gamerankings.com: 93%

DoW2 is borrowing many elements from the first game and applying them to the Company of Heroes formula - a game that is quite clearly very, very well respected amongst the global RTS community. I'm not trying to start a debate as to whether StarCraft, Dawn of War or Company of Heroes is the better game, but since you brought it up, I'll go with it.

Based on company history, I think it's fair to say at the least that the two games have equal potential, and based on Relic's willigness to refine and evolve the genre (while Blizzard is stuck in 1998 ), Dawn of War 2 may very well offer a much more appealing experience for the RTS players of 2009, given that it will be an RTS of 2009, rather than an eleven year old game with a new engine and a few balance changes.

My vote will always go to Dawn of War 2, because it's Warhammer 40K, because it has squads, because it's Warhammer 40K, because it (presumably) has a territory-based resource system, and because it's Warhammer 40K. Also, because it's Warhammer 40K.

And don't forget that it's Warhammer 40K.

I always love reading your posts.

[QUOTE="Xxgood-timesXx"][QUOTE="gogators4life"]

I predict that DOW 2 will get more awards and better reviews than SC 2, I also predict that SC 2 will out sell DOW 2.

Anyone want to bet against me? ;)

mfsa

i doubt that, dow2 will be borrowing many of its elements from the first game. the first game dident receive any awards other than runner up and best expansion awards, which there were 2,3 expansions. receiving a bunch of awards but none really meaningful. doesnt mean much. I predict it will not get better reviews than sc2.

Company of Heroes' average score at Gamerankings.com: 94%

StarCraft's average score at Gamerankings.com: 93%

DoW2 is borrowing many elements from the first game and applying them to the Company of Heroes formula - a game that is quite clearly very, very well respected amongst the global RTS community. I'm not trying to start a debate as to whether StarCraft, Dawn of War or Company of Heroes is the better game, but since you brought it up, I'll go with it.

Based on company history, I think it's fair to say at the least that the two games have equal potential, and based on Relic's willigness to refine and evolve the genre (while Blizzard is stuck in 1998 ), Dawn of War 2 may very well offer a much more appealing experience for the RTS players of 2009, given that it will be an RTS of 2009, rather than an eleven year old game with a new engine and a few balance changes.

My vote will always go to Dawn of War 2, because it's Warhammer 40K, because it has squads, because it's Warhammer 40K, because it (presumably) has a territory-based resource system, and because it's Warhammer 40K. Also, because it's Warhammer 40K.

And don't forget that it's Warhammer 40K.

Alright, in 10 years lets see how many are playing CoH and see how those ratings hold up..

They are both good in their style of gameplay.Sprozelth

I agree but I still think they are comparable, but damnit man this is such a hard question, I mean, just look at starcraft 2 videos....how can I not think that's amazing?!

I think they are both gonna be insanely epic, but since I'm a DoW fan more, I'll just give the vote to DoW 2, even though I'm still kind of thinking I should be picking Starcraft 2.

[QUOTE="mfsa"][QUOTE="Xxgood-timesXx"][QUOTE="gogators4life"]

I predict that DOW 2 will get more awards and better reviews than SC 2, I also predict that SC 2 will out sell DOW 2.

Anyone want to bet against me? ;)

crazymaghie123

i doubt that, dow2 will be borrowing many of its elements from the first game. the first game dident receive any awards other than runner up and best expansion awards, which there were 2,3 expansions. receiving a bunch of awards but none really meaningful. doesnt mean much. I predict it will not get better reviews than sc2.

Company of Heroes' average score at Gamerankings.com: 94%

StarCraft's average score at Gamerankings.com: 93%

DoW2 is borrowing many elements from the first game and applying them to the Company of Heroes formula - a game that is quite clearly very, very well respected amongst the global RTS community. I'm not trying to start a debate as to whether StarCraft, Dawn of War or Company of Heroes is the better game, but since you brought it up, I'll go with it.

Based on company history, I think it's fair to say at the least that the two games have equal potential, and based on Relic's willigness to refine and evolve the genre (while Blizzard is stuck in 1998 ), Dawn of War 2 may very well offer a much more appealing experience for the RTS players of 2009, given that it will be an RTS of 2009, rather than an eleven year old game with a new engine and a few balance changes.

My vote will always go to Dawn of War 2, because it's Warhammer 40K, because it has squads, because it's Warhammer 40K, because it (presumably) has a territory-based resource system, and because it's Warhammer 40K. Also, because it's Warhammer 40K.

And don't forget that it's Warhammer 40K.

Alright, in 10 years lets see how many are playing CoH and see how those ratings hold up..

Popularity=/= quality

But I'm not saying SC 2 isn't good

What I think makes SC stands out from other RTS is its unints

Company of Heroes' average score at Gamerankings.com: 94%

StarCraft's average score at Gamerankings.com: 93%

mfsa

CoH : OF - 87%

SW: BW - 96%

I think both games appeal to different audiences. Starcraft 2 appeals more to people who played the original Starcraft 1 campaign. I have only read it and barely played it. Been meaning to get to it however. The people who played Starcraft will definitely check out DoW 2.

Dawn of War is a mature rated title and thus appeals to a more mature audience. No doubt younger kids might have got their hands on it.

I will play Starcraft and Starcraft 2 because they are high quality titles. However I am more excited about Dawn of War 2 since it appeals more to me.

It's a matter of taste but both games will do well. Starcraft 2 is most likely going to out sell Dawn of War 2 because of the Blizzard label and fan base. However Dawn of War 2 will not dissapoint.

Dawn of War 2.... so easy. For me, that is.

SC2 will be a great game, but I don't think it will match up to Dawn of War 2. Sure, it will have better online, sure it will have a better campaign, but I play RTS games for the SP skirmish. I'd prefer DoW2 gameplay, which puts it above SC2 in that respect.

Oh yeah, SC2's combat style vs the DoW/CoH combination? DoW2 all the way.

Here's what I think this is about. If you prefer to watch the battles and things happening, more often than being required to micro-manage units or actually command the entire battle, then I think games like DoW2 or another CoH-style game will appeal to you more. If you prefer a game that requires a great amount of practice and has players who seem like they play professionally, I would go with Starcraft 2.

SKaREO

[QUOTE="SKaREO"]

Here's what I think this is about. If you prefer to watch the battles and things happening, more often than being required to micro-manage units or actually command the entire battle, then I think games like DoW2 or another CoH-style game will appeal to you more. If you prefer a game that requires a great amount of practice and has players who seem like they play professionally, I would go with Starcraft 2.

yujast

Compared to what? Some of the things you mentioned aren't even micro or require that much attention, or just don't make sense in a game of CoH, like 'set up more barracks' its not micro, its very easy and in a course of a normal 1v1 you will not do it unless you suck and got yours destroyed.

Anyways half the time micro in CoH = Babysitting, CoH is a great game but its not exactly a micro heavy one.

[QUOTE="yujast"][QUOTE="SKaREO"]

Here's what I think this is about. If you prefer to watch the battles and things happening, more often than being required to micro-manage units or actually command the entire battle, then I think games like DoW2 or another CoH-style game will appeal to you more. If you prefer a game that requires a great amount of practice and has players who seem like they play professionally, I would go with Starcraft 2.

Nikalai_88

Compared to what? Some of the things you mentioned aren't even micro or require that much attention, or just don't make sense in a game of CoH, like 'set up more barracks' its not micro, its very easy and in a course of a normal 1v1 you will not do it unless you suck and got yours destroyed.

Anyways half the time micro in CoH = Babysitting, CoH is a great game but its not exactly a micro heavy one.

[QUOTE="Nikalai_88"][QUOTE="yujast"][QUOTE="SKaREO"]

Here's what I think this is about. If you prefer to watch the battles and things happening, more often than being required to micro-manage units or actually command the entire battle, then I think games like DoW2 or another CoH-style game will appeal to you more. If you prefer a game that requires a great amount of practice and has players who seem like they play professionally, I would go with Starcraft 2.

yujast

Compared to what? Some of the things you mentioned aren't even micro or require that much attention, or just don't make sense in a game of CoH, like 'set up more barracks' its not micro, its very easy and in a course of a normal 1v1 you will not do it unless you suck and got yours destroyed.

Anyways half the time micro in CoH = Babysitting, CoH is a great game but its not exactly a micro heavy one.

This is actually a common misconception. CoH REQUIRES a certain amount of micro to do well at all however once it is achieved the rewards achieved by further micro are fairly minimal. Starcraft requires next to no micro however there's a pretty steady benifit to more and more APM's. This continues to the point where high level ladder play on CoH is actually rather tame APM-wise while high level Starcraft involves an insane amount of micro. Personally I prefer Relic's model, however it's a bit of a misnomer to claim that CoH is more micro intensive than Starcraft since the amount of micro really does depend on the level of play.

...while high level Starcraft involves an insane amount of micro.Uberbadassmufuh

If I wanted to be a line officer, sure, SC works for that. I'd rather command an army... and for that, I'll take DoW (even if it is a small army).

DoW2 will move the genre forward. SCII will try to move it back 10 years. My vote's for progress.

It's supposed to be a strategy game, and the strategy part got buried under all the micro-management.

OrkHammer007

I have to agree with you man. I mean, I love StarCraft (Just bought the Battlechest about 2 weeks ago actually! :D) but I have to admit that it seems like only half of it is strategy and the other half is micro. Someone could be an excellent strategist but have horrible micro, and be playing someone who isn't that good of a strategist, but has excellent micro, and the one with better micro will win. I may be thinking like this because I'm a n00b and it's frustrating getting beat to the dirt online in SC because people have higher APMs than me, but whatever.

[QUOTE="Uberbadassmufuh"]...while high level Starcraft involves an insane amount of micro.OrkHammer007

If I wanted to be a line officer, sure, SC works for that. I'd rather command an army... and for that, I'll take DoW (even if it is a small army).

DoW2 will move the genre forward. SCII will try to move it back 10 years. My vote's for progress.

If you didn't realize in any regular DoW game a helluva alot of micro is needed as well.. Just as much if not more.. Because your constantly facing the combat.. If anything there were very few strategy choices in DoW when compared to Starcraft for build orders.. DoW playing online for quite some time have really only found a handful if not less.

In Starcraft, say you have an army, and your opponent has an army. All you have to do is select your army and right click theirs. Then sit back and watch. In CoH, you have to flank aritillery, tanks, mortars, MG nests, take cover, move from cover to cover, build field defenses, etc. In CoH, you can't just select your army and right click theirs, because there's just too much you have to micromanage. Like if you have 8 squads, you have to actually split them up when attacking if you wanna do good.
yujast

I believe you have never seen Starcraft Game... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zP6zU7ixqsM&feature=related just an example that you dont ONLY right click your opponent.

[QUOTE="Uberbadassmufuh"]...while high level Starcraft involves an insane amount of micro.OrkHammer007

If I wanted to be a line officer, sure, SC works for that. I'd rather command an army... and for that, I'll take DoW (even if it is a small army).

DoW2 will move the genre forward. SCII will try to move it back 10 years. My vote's for progress.

I find it amusing that some Relic fans argue that their games have a ton of micro while others argue that there is very little of it, get your arguments together people! Anyways RTS games have always been part skill and part strategy, and have always varied in this regard, I don't think all RTS games should play to the syle of Relic, or to the style of Blizzard and it is ultimately up to personal preference* but what makes SC intense is how it pushes both. For strategy turn/quasi-turn based games have usually handled pure strategy better, look at Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin as an example. The only game that I know of that somewhat simulates being an officer is the Airborne Assault series, I would hardly call having DoW squads similar to commanding an army, as there isn't even a chain of command. But I do supposed hardcore warhammer fans have to be somewhat crazy to handle all the milkage of Games Workshop.

*Going "in my opinion...this game sucks" is just an insult and can't be defended as a pure opinion

[QUOTE="OrkHammer007"]

[QUOTE="Uberbadassmufuh"]...while high level Starcraft involves an insane amount of micro.Nikalai_88

If I wanted to be a line officer, sure, SC works for that. I'd rather command an army... and for that, I'll take DoW (even if it is a small army).

DoW2 will move the genre forward. SCII will try to move it back 10 years. My vote's for progress.

I find it amusing that some Relic fans argue that their games have a ton of micro while others argue that there is very little of it, get your arguments together people! Anyways RTS games have always been part skill and part strategy, and have always varied in this regard, I don't think all RTS games should play to the syle of Relic, or to the style of Blizzard and it is ultimately up to personal preference* but what makes SC intense is how it pushes both. For strategy turn/quasi-turn based games have usually handled pure strategy better, look at Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin as an example. The only game that I know of that somewhat simulates being an officer is the Airborne Assault series, I would hardly call having DoW squads similar to commanding an army, as there isn't even a chain of command. But I do supposed hardcore warhammer fans have to be somewhat crazy to handle all the milkage of Games Workshop.

*Going "in my opinion...this game sucks" is just an insult and can't be defended as a pure opinion

I can appreciate what I think Ork is going for in that he seems to want macro to be the primary and micro to be a distant secondary factor in the viability of a player. In all fairness Relic does do a better job in this since my years of playing the various iterations of Warcraft and Starcraft make it pretty clear that micro is Primary. Like... hardcore. I find micro to be a chore that I have to drill to get to the actual meat of RTS and rejoice whenever it's reduced however I do realize there's a demographic out there that find it to be the most fun part of the RTS genre. I think you're all bat**** insane but I recognize you're a significant part of the RTS community. Ork can feel free to contradict me if this is totally off base.

Starcraft is summed up in 2 words: micro and battlenet. Other than those two things, it kinda pales in comparison to the gameplay of Relic's RTS games.

[QUOTE="Nikalai_88"]

[QUOTE="OrkHammer007"]

[QUOTE="Uberbadassmufuh"]...while high level Starcraft involves an insane amount of micro.Uberbadassmufuh

If I wanted to be a line officer, sure, SC works for that. I'd rather command an army... and for that, I'll take DoW (even if it is a small army).

DoW2 will move the genre forward. SCII will try to move it back 10 years. My vote's for progress.

I find it amusing that some Relic fans argue that their games have a ton of micro while others argue that there is very little of it, get your arguments together people! Anyways RTS games have always been part skill and part strategy, and have always varied in this regard, I don't think all RTS games should play to the syle of Relic, or to the style of Blizzard and it is ultimately up to personal preference* but what makes SC intense is how it pushes both. For strategy turn/quasi-turn based games have usually handled pure strategy better, look at Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin as an example. The only game that I know of that somewhat simulates being an officer is the Airborne Assault series, I would hardly call having DoW squads similar to commanding an army, as there isn't even a chain of command. But I do supposed hardcore warhammer fans have to be somewhat crazy to handle all the milkage of Games Workshop.

*Going "in my opinion...this game sucks" is just an insult and can't be defended as a pure opinion

I can appreciate what I think Ork is going for in that he seems to want macro to be the primary and micro to be a distant secondary factor in the viability of a player. In all fairness Relic does do a better job in this since my years of playing the various iterations of Warcraft and Starcraft make it pretty clear that micro is Primary. Like... hardcore. I find micro to be a chore that I have to drill to get to the actual meat of RTS and rejoice whenever it's reduced however I do realize there's a demographic out there that find it to be the most fun part of the RTS genre. I think you're all bat**** insane but I recognize you're a significant part of the RTS community. Ork can feel free to contradict me if this is totally off base.

Ork has proven himself to dislike and bash Blizzard on every opportunity, he isn't going for anything, he didn't even state macro of which there is little in Relic games, the Panzer Elite have a total of, what, four economic buildings? Micro is very necessary in SC, but you will not get along without good macro, macro was a great strength of several Korean players like iloveoov and NaDa while BoxeR's had amazing micro but his macro was always thought to be a weakness. Anyways here is a small micro/macro in StarCraft tidbit. CoH seemed to have more micro than DoW (have not played much of DoW) so maybe they are going into that direction? As I mentioned before for pure strategy I prefer wargames.