• Publisher: THQ
  • Release Date: Feb 18, 2009
User Score
8.1

Generally favorable reviews- based on 1392 Ratings

User score distribution:

Review this game

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Jul 28, 2012
    9
    Okay, I'll be honest with you. At first, having tried the demo and a taste of what DoW2 has to offer, I was sorely disappointed by the drastic change from the gameplay of the original game. HOWEVER, I still decided to give it a shot and I'm so glad that I did. The game plays differently, (there's no building, and more about squad abilities and tactics) but this is by no means bad. The campaign is quite engaging and you're given a number of varied squads to improve and upgrade throughout the game, and that is by far my favourite part. There is choice involved in missions, outfitting and strategy, making an overall flamboyant single player campaign. The co-op is just as sweet. But wait there's more. The cream of the crop is the multiplayer and The Last Stand where you take on hordes of monsters with 2 other heroes. Great additions all way round. Long story short, yes it is a massive departure from DoW1's style but it is fortunately just as good in its own right. I certainly have respect for the devs for changing things up and trying out something new, and I'm glad that they've still kept the strength of this series and its ability to constantly impress me. Expand
  2. Oct 4, 2010
    10
    Dawn of War II is an excellent game in its own right. However, it is easy to understand how fans of the first game feel slightly wronged after having played it. It is very different compared to the first game, perhaps too much so for it to be called a direct sequel. But if you only look at it as a game it is still quite a great one.

    The visuals are very nice and the gameplay is fluid and
    fun. Dawn of War keeps setting the standard for visceral combat in the RTS genre. Expand
  3. Mar 11, 2011
    6
    I think the best thing (in my eyes) of this game is the graphics. The graphics are a huge improvement over DOW I and any other RTS I've ever played (and I've played most of the major ones, SC2, Company of Heroes, Supreme Commander I and II, etc etc).
    That's the main good thing I liked. That and how the gameplay revolves more around combat rather than resource gathering. And, of course, the
    fact that it features the Imperium.

    The thing that I didn't like about this game was that it had very small army sizes, and VERY small battles. This is a step down from DOW I, where you could actually command armies. In DOW II, you get a few squads, and that's it, you're stuck with them. No building squads, no calling in reinforcement squads, nothing. You choose four for each mission and you're stuck with them. This needs a serious fix in the next game.
    Second, the campaign is more of an RTS/RPG hybrid rather than a true RTS. You choose equipment for each character, and decide what each character brings. In regular RTS's, you don't get to do that, each squad has a specialty, and you know their abilities. So it's not a true RTS, but rather an RTS/RPG hybrid.

    Hopefully the next game will be better.
    Expand
  4. Dec 4, 2010
    8
    This along with Company of Heroes are my most favourite current RTS. The reason for this is the way the game plays. Rather than matches being about unit spam (unless you're playing Orks or Tyranids, where it's partly about unit spam), it's more about tactics and unit placement. My real problem with the game is how hard it is. I can't speak for everyone as I'm naturally bad at RTS games, but I do believe that there has been a problem with this game for not just me, but a majority of people who try to play online and usually end up fighting against people 10x better than themselves. This causes a lot of new players to be put off meaning that other new players don't get a chance to fight against equally skilled people. I suppose it really just takes perseverance but it's still tough.
    The graphics of the game are absolutely lovely, definitely best out there, on par with, if not better than Starcraft 2's graphics.

    For originality of gameplay how ever, this game is basically Company of Heroes, set in WH40k, and a smaller viewing angle with a closer in camera.
    Expand
  5. Oct 18, 2011
    2
    This was no fun at all. except the missions where you defend against waves. INSANE repetition of maps, you will play the same map at least 3 times with similar objectives. Losing men is meaningless, you just retreat and recharge. EVERY situation can be dealt with the same way, lead the enemy to a bottleneck. The AI is non existent, units simply charge at you, or wait until you get in their viewing range.
    Massive step back in every respect except graphics.
    this is disappointing after the previous DOW games. No buildings just removes an element from the game without adding a thing. Except superior graphics and destructible environments, no advancements and all removals of features.
    Expand
  6. Jul 21, 2012
    9
    Dawn of War 2 is an RTS/RPG-hybrid where the player takes control of a maximum of four squads of units. Standard RTS-controls apply. Each squad comes with a squad leader that can level up between missions and equip new items that are looted on the battlefield or gained as a mission reward. After each mission the player will be asked to choose the next mission objective from a star map where they will be able to see how much time is left for a mission, what the rewards are and what kind of assets are available on the planets. The ultimate goal is to stop the Tyranid threat which is represented by a bar that is constantly filling up as time goes by. Focus too much on one planet and you won't be able to save another. During missions there are three types of assets to be captured and each asset gives the player a strategic advantage. Winning the game relies on finding the time to capture these assets but not lingering around for too long as it diminishes the chances of gaining another deployment for that day. The more deployments per day that you secure, the slower the Tyranid threat grows and the more experience your troops gain. When 2 players engage in co-operative play, they will each be assigned two squads and although these are locked during the RTS stage, the players are allowed to both seamlessly control the interface during the RPG/tactical planning phase. As the person whom I played DoW 2 with put it "the Warhammer universe is endlessly repeating itself" so the story is just that; familiar. Sounds and video are excellent, the game looks and plays brilliantly. Although I am not a very big fan of the Warhammer universe, this game is legendary. Most fun can be had in co-operative play with a like-minded friend and my only grievances with it are the fishtank soundbug, the inclusion of GFWL and the inability to rebind your special abilities and accessoires! Expand
  7. Nov 25, 2010
    10
    Beautiful campaign mode. Great voice acting. Great action. Wonderful ability to outfit your team and unit selection. nice graphics.
    A Rare game that is nearly perfect as far as a role play campaign is concerned.
    2 thumbs up!
  8. Jan 2, 2011
    8
    I never knew anything about the Warhammer Universe, until i picked up my copy of Dawn of War, several years ago and i was immediately engrossed. With great eagerness, i picked up this game the day it was released. EDITORS NOTE-All in all, i fear change so my review may be seriously biased but here it goes anyway.
    DOW 2, is a game that will please you and frustrate you at the same time.
    To me, it is just company of heroes meets DOW and that aspect bothered me a lot. It took me a while to get over that. Also, the fact that you have to have an internet connection, and you have to get windows live bothered me a lot too. Well, what if someone doesn't have an internet connection. I am sure there are some people out there who still do not. I am lucky enough to have that.
    For those of you who are huge DOW fans, you might be a tad dissapointed at what is going on in this game. For starters, there are no more base building. You have an galactic map which shows you all the planets that you can travel too. there are three of them in which you are to initiate warp travel to reach. You start out with yourself, the commander, and a tactical squad. Mind you, the squad consists of only 4 space marines. then, as you progress you get other squads, a devestator squad(heavy weapons, 3 space marines), a scout squad,(3) and an assault squad.(3). As for the assault squad well, what can i say about the assault squad? I have had it on missions and he is always usually the first to die. He kinda sucks in the first DOW 2. He gets better in Chaos rising.
    During missions, your squad earns xp, and upon leveling up you can unlock new powers for your squads to use, some of which are pretty bad ass. But it seems to me, you can only have one and not the other, as there is a level cap of 20, so choose the right path you want for your squads, as you will not be able to get those points back.
    Personally, i stuck with the same for guys more or less the same time, varying upon the different missions parameters, which aren't really that different at all. You are going to either attack or defend, and most defend missions, you will have a time limit to do so, in which if you miss it you have to wait for a later point to go resecure that sector and what was lost. At times, i also do feel very overwhelmed. I know space marines are all powerful to an extent, but sometimes it is just insane. I do believe before the first patch, the weapons were a bit different and did more damage, as i get confused, when a bolter says it only does 11.6 damage per second and my squad which does 9 damage, goes down. I thought higher damage was better, call me crazy. Which includes power weapons. Most power weapons, which although do more damage then a chainsword, do not actually do as much damage on the field, due to their attack speed i am guessing?
    anyway, all set aside i have fallen asleep during the single player. The same type of missions do tend to get a tad mundane and repetitive, and sometimes the war gear rewards aren't even worth doing it in the first place. But it is a decent campaign.
    The multiplayer is pretty engrossing, but once again highly modeled upon the COH engine, with holding of victory points, and anniahalte. No base building, so dont even think about that. It is definitely a far cry from the DOW.
    the army painter i was dissapointed in as well, as it seems to me there is less detail you can do from the first one.
    the last stand? I don't even know what to say about that. It's as if someone said, no no, we want the game to be harder so they did. It gets repetitive. The leveling up takes too long. DONT EVER PRESTIGE BECAUSE IT SUCKS AND YOU WILL LOSE EVERYTHING AND GET SOME CRAPPY REWARD.
    do i reccommend it? if you're new to DOW yeah, you can go in this with a clear head. If you are into DOW? Sure, just be prepared to be let down a bit. Thanks
    Expand
  9. Aug 12, 2011
    7
    Impressive and plenty of fun, with some noticeable flaws. The biggest flaw I'd say is the lack of responsive units. Nearly every unit feels slow and uncoordinated. With that said, the tactical aspects of the game are very fun. Setting up your units behind cover and watching them obliterate the landscape (along with any Ork in the way) is satisfying. I miss the large army/base-building gameplay from the first Dawn of War, but they've done a good job with this one. Expand
  10. Apr 10, 2011
    8
    I have DOW 2 and DOW 2 Chaos Rising, will probably get Retribution sometime this year. This game is good. The stand alone campaign is interesting and replayable. What makes this game really good is the co-op game "The Last Stand" and you can co-op the campaign games too. It is worth getting all 3 games together at $60 on steam but you can buy the first 2 games for $20 each.
  11. Sep 3, 2011
    7
    This is a new approach at the RTS where you have control of stronger units than the typical RTS but you don't make new ones. Gone is the base building and resource management and you only focus on the combat. For me, that's fun but I can see where some people were let down. Since I only cared about the combat and paying attention to how much of this or that I have never appealed to me this game works really well. Other than that fundamental change its very much a RTS where you control each of your units from a top down perspective and each has a few unique abilities. This game adds a slight RPG element in that you collect loot as armor and weapons and customize your squads. You also spend points on very simple talent trees which adds a little extra to the game. Want your giant mech walker to kill from range or do you want him to squish units in melee range? You decide. It's got decent voiced story parts and the graphics are not bad either. Points taken off are for awkward keybinding which you can't change and missing graphical elements such as Vsync. These things can be modified if you want to go into the files and feel comfortable editing code and game files, something I think the devs should just put the stupid button in the game. Expand
  12. May 10, 2011
    4
    Don't get me wrong, the game has some things I like about it, specifically a unique blend of RPG and RTS, not to mention that it has the name of Warhammer 40,000. But like many of the other people who expressed frustration with this game, I felt like it just barely missed being exceptional with a few short-sighted mistakes (including lackluster AI, early-launch bugs, and unbalanced play). The fatal blow to the game in my mind was the repetition. Did they really launch a game with only a handful of maps (campaign) and then expect you to play each one until you can recreate it in your head down to the very last pixel? This is one of the few times that I've been very disappointed with the professional critics because I think they missed the mark in a major way. I understand that they want to support a company who tries something new (i.e. blend multiple genres), but the game simply doesn't rate as well as the critics claimed (which is evident in the fact that, for once, the professional critics have a higher rating than the users). Expand
  13. Nov 3, 2011
    9
    Singleplayer was great, although filled with cheese. No room for character development with space marines, but I guess that's how they were created. Once the tryanids came in, you did see some repeating missions, but they were avoidable for the most part. Great strategic gameplay, and I loved the loot and the abilities (SO! MUCH! LOOT!!!!).

    The multiplayer modes seem well balanced,
    although I haven't touched them enough to give a rock-solid review on them. Last Stand is incredibly fun, constantly having me come up with new and interesting ways to slaughter hordes of enemies (although there's some loadouts that are clearly better).

    Some may not like the squad based gameplay, and I was a little confused with it at first, but it grows on you. Instead of most RTSs where individual units are usually expendable, keeping units alive in this game is crucial (multiplayer). As long as one squad member survives, you can replenish the squad, so their upgrades and levels don't go to waste. The entire squad gets gibbed, you lose their vital experience. That's not to say that you can't beat higher level enemies, but it's certainly harder.
    Expand
  14. Jul 12, 2011
    8
    I'm a longtime fan of Warhammer 40,000 tabletop game. Dawn of War gave me the flair i loved of the stories from that game on my computer. And seeing the models I've painted for years coming to life on my screen was a thrill. Now dawn of war II comes out and I was excited to buy it.

    I wish on the cover it would have said tactical RPG, because there is no resource management at all in the
    campaign. Go here, blow this up, go there blow that up. Use some abilities, mission ends. It is fun, but it is not a real time strategy. it's a fun game in it's own right, if you want more tactical play, get Company of Heroes or the original Dawn of War game with expansions. Expand
  15. Sep 25, 2011
    10
    Ein sehr gelungenes und spannendes Spiel, macht mir heute immer noch SpaÃ
  16. Oct 23, 2011
    8
    I love the graphics,the Characters,the weapons,the costumization hero,I'm not so impress with multiplayer mode but it's not bad.I don't really like about the design each mission of the campaign,they're al just the same activities= Explore,find the foundry or the what they call commlink or something,kill the ORKS then find the boss on the top of the map,get the wargear.it's kind of boring activity to me...however I still love the fantasy of the Warhammer 40K universe Expand
  17. Dec 10, 2011
    0
    For completely unknown reasons there are game designers who think you can never have enough generic 'zerg the world' games: And it seems they all worked on DoW2.
    There is no strategy in this game; there are barely any tactics in this game; but if you're a 6 year old moron and can be entertained for hours on the strength of pretty colours and sparkly lights then you'll find plenty in DoW 2
    to love.
    A massive step backwards for the franchise and seriously damaging to the entire GW brand.
    Expand
  18. Jun 16, 2012
    2
    Hugely dissapointed, They took away everything that was great about DOW1 and pretty much screwed it up. The battles aren't epic, the lack of base building isn't fun, and the races are all the same and boring. I had really high hopes for this game, I seriously wish I could return this.

    2 for graphics.
  19. Nov 14, 2012
    8
    How's every body doing, for my first review I decided to do one of my favorite games. Having played all of the previous Dawn of War games I had pretty high expectations for this one, especially with all the epic fails that all the expansions for the previous dawn of war ended up being.

    Just to start I'll go into the single player campaign. The game mechanics are very similar to the
    first Dawn of war, which were fairly easy to pickup within the first mission or two. It became very obvious to me from the beginning that the guys at THQ have actually started to listen to some of the fan base of the original game. They have implemented and in depth story line that does the books justice but still allowed for some choice on how to develop your characters, and how you proceed along the liner story line. "You must remember while playing the game that yes, the game play is important but they are trying to tell a story as well." The cover concept was add back into the game, well maybe that's a bad way to put it. A better way to put it is that they made cover important again, basically there is no more mad rush tactics that were so common in the previous expansions. Basically the campaign it's self is pretty solid all around, keeping you interested right till the end.

    The RPG element of the game, they have made vast improvements in this compared to it's predecessor. Now I'm not saying that it is anything new that we haven't seen in other games, but it works, it's simple and it keeps your focus where it should be... on the Mission map. Simply there is two RPG elements common to all RPG games leveling your characters and they're load out of equipment. The equipment load out is pretty simple you'll figure it out for your self. The leveling of your character can be a little trickier, you have to choose between being a jack of all trades or leveling up in very specific areas. This being said if you are not adaptable and can't move away from a certain play style your are not going to get much replay value out of DOW 2.

    Multiplayer, sorry I can't really comment on this part of the game. This is mostly because, the very hard-line multiplayer focus of the previous DOW was what ruined the game for a lot of fans of the first game, so to be honest I really had no interest into delving into that part of the game.

    In all I gave the game and 8 because THQ took and old game that people love and made it new again.
    Expand
  20. Dec 6, 2011
    6
    In dire need of a real time strategy game I got this for a steal on Steam. It's a nice game and I must stress as someone who had no clue what Warhammer was until this YOU DON"T NEED TO BE FAMILIAR WITH THE SERIES TO LIKE THIS GAME.
  21. Feb 3, 2011
    0
    I've seen PopCap browser games with more depth than Dawn of War 2. Not Strategic thinking needed here - this is pure point-and-shoot action with the added "Spice" if hitting your special abilities whenever the cooldown is up. Moving your units is not smooth, either, given that they attempt to stick to cover regardless of where you want them to go. Boring, insipid, and an insult to fans of the original who opened their wallets for three expansions while waiting on this game. Expand
  22. Sep 16, 2010
    7
    Pluses: Graphics, story maybe, and BEING UR OWN SPACE MARINE COMMANDER!...sort of. Though to actually see damage taken to units her compared to 40k DC. The different voices where a thumbs up. The equipment feature was really cool. I still like DC the best tho. Still have to try this out ONLINE. AND WHERE THE HELL HAS MY LANDRAIDER GONE! I really expected more units here! maybe even a titan...maybe its too early 4 that :? too little units is the minus. Game is OVERPRICED! These these guys i tell u... sell expansion after expansion with like one or two new races, same feel campaign and a new box cover u love. more cud have bin done here. 7/10 Expand
  23. Jan 3, 2013
    8
    This is definitely one of the best games I have ever played in my entire life. I will rate it 8 because it uses Windows LIVE, though. Absolutely terrible service.
  24. Oct 26, 2010
    10
    Relic has been pushing innovation in the RTS genre that was dominated in the early 90's by the powerhouses of Westwood Studios and Blizzard. While Westwood was absorbed into EA and Blizzard switched their focus towards the MMO market, this developer has quietly pushed release after release in the RTS market starting with the wonderful Homeworld series. If you like "traditional" style of RTS found in Starcraft and C&C this might not be your game. Single player it plays like an RTS with elements of an RPG with experience pts, skills, and item drops. This is not a game where who has the highest APM but using good tactics that utilize the strength of your squads. Charging into battle will only get you killed. This puts the strategy into RTS, not simply following the same build order in SCII for the first 10 minutes over and over again. Expand
  25. Feb 24, 2011
    1
    I know I'm a little late coming, but I had to add my two cents. This game ruined the DoW franchise for me. The fact that I *HAVE* to be connected to steam(resource hog) and Microcrap live angers me. I'm a die hard skirmish map player, and the skirmish maps in this game are impossible. The population cap is ridiculous, leaving the player with too few troops to defend the strategic points. The bases are TOO heavily armored and take years to destroy. Even in the Retribution Beta it took 4 leman russ tanks, 1 manticore, and 1 baneblade nearly 15 minutes to destroy the base. The campaign mode is..just anti-climatic, there's little or no strategy involved. What is the point of gathering up all this war gear if you just lose it at the end of the game? Why not have it unlock the gear for skirmishes? Of course that would require the skirmishes to actually be playable.
    I don't know HOW this game scored so highly, it's the worst version of the DoW franchise to date. I'll stick with Dark Crusade thanks. At least till they fix this pathetic game.
    About the only good thing I can say about this game is the graphics are decent..when they aren't too busy bogging down the computer.

    This is not RTS. It does not 're-define' the RTS genre because it's not RTS. It may as well be turn-based. I think the only other time I've been SO disappointed in a game sequel was the pathetic excuse for a sequel to Deus Ex. Now THERE was a genre-bending, innovative game. But, like this game, the sequel was a pale shade of the original game. Don't pay more than $10 for anything involved with this game. It's worth ten bucks. Maybe...
    Expand
  26. Feb 3, 2013
    3
    I loved the first game in the series, the base building, while less than most other RTS games, was still solid, and balanced with the game play. It was, it's own game. I LOVED it.

    Then this game came out. Absolutely HATED it, they took everything I loved from 40k, and just threw it right out the window. Lets take out all the base building, most of the vehicles, and EVERY single
    element that could even be close to macro-managing in favor of uselessly elongated matches.

    And the campaign...they decided they'd make a bunch of 1v1 maps, then just port them all into the campaign. Want interesting match-ups? Too bad. Wanted to do a space marine rush/push? Too bad, because you have to work with 4 squads of 3, which entails sitting around for a long time waiting for them to kill massive spam of enemies.

    Worst RTS I've ever played, by far.
    Expand
  27. Sep 23, 2012
    9
    I am generally not a big RTS fan, but I greatly liked Dawn of War II. Maybe perhaps it was very action-oriented and had a good pace. Maybe also this is why many of the fans of the original didn't like this one. You don't actually build anything in this game or collect resources, etc. You just get dropped off in the battle zone and using various skills and military tactics you have to get the mission done. The missions have a good length and do not drag on, but there are loads of them. Another feature that I really loved about Dawn of War II is the presence of RPG elements. The squad characters level up as you complete missions and when they level up you can advance them in certain combat disciplines, whether it's health and survival, ranged damage, melee damage, or energy utilisation. This gives a certain element of replayability as you can take each squad member in different directions. Each character has their distinct strengths and weaknesses, and hence a lot of decision making befalls on the player when it comes to choosing which gear to equip them and in fact which squad members to take on the mission (as you can't take them all). The campaign is pretty long and also has a bit of an open-ended style to it after about halfway through, where some missions are optional and others are time-sensitive, meaning you also have to make decisions in regard to prioritising your missions, which is great fun and is incredibly intense. There is a lot of incentive to do well on each mission, because the better you do them, the more additional deployments you get and hence you can solve time-critical missions earlier on. I'll also review the Chaos Rising expansion on here too. It introduced a new story arc that takes place a year after the Dawn of War II campaign, and although the storyline is better, full of various twists, the campaign suffers a bit from being way too linear. There is no more incentive for doing well, because you do not get additional deployments and there are hardly any optional and time-critical missions. Chaos Rising also introduces an additional squad member, as well as a new idea to the gameplay - the corruption system. To be honest, I wasn't too fond of this idea as it was a bit annoying since all of the best gear was corrupting to the squad members, so you either had to use mediocre gear, or to use the corrupting gear and face the consequences during the game. Although Chaos Rising was a bit weaker in my opinion than the Dawn of War II campaign, I generally enjoyed them both and they lasted me a good amount of time - the original DoW II campaign should last you around 20 hours, and Chaos Rising another 10, so you'll have at least 30 hours in a single playthrough, not to mention the option of playing co-op with friends, as well as the hoard/survival mode. Expand
  28. Jul 9, 2011
    1
    I believe Warhammer is a game loved by people who play the fantasy version. Though the graphics are simply awesome, the game leaves a lot to be desired from the strategy side of things. Folks, strategy implies that there are choices you can make that change the way the game unfolds--there is no such thing here. This game is boring after the video "awesomeness" wears out (and that doesn't take long). Expand
  29. Jul 13, 2011
    3
    I was a big fan of the original Dawn of War, so I was pretty excited when Dawn of War 2 came out. This game is probably the most disappointing sequel I have ever purchased! I understand them tweaking the gameplay a little, the first game just had large armies colliding into each other on the battlefield, which isn't very realistic or tactical. BUT I was rarely ever bored with the first game, unlike it's sequel which I often found myself only mildly amused. Units don't feel powerful anymore, especially the commander units (except for vehicles), and everything just seems tame compared to the first game. Expand
  30. Jul 17, 2011
    2
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. 10â Expand
  31. Jul 28, 2012
    9
    I find it rather odd how people are complaining about the RPG elements in the singleplayer mode. Warhammer 40k having RPG elements is bad? Did people have a lapse of memory as to what 40k is? The RPG elements do a better job of resembling collecting figures, building your army, and rolling dice than having completely uncustomizeable units. I mean seriously...

    GFWL is a complaint? It's
    free. I honestly do not understand why people think it is such a hassle. Aside from the automatic sign in as the game launches, you wouldn't even notice that GFWL exists until you play multiplayer. Making an account takes a minute unless you're handicapped in some regard. I've had GFWL for 7 years now and never in my entire usage did I encounter the kinds of problems people commonly complain about. I get it, it sucks having to use it. I completely agree, but that alone doesn't make it bad.

    Retreat is definitely an issue, but this is more of a Relic issue, not a DOWII issue. Relic did the same **** in COH and they realized people were upset by it so they're changing it. I agree, the current retreat feature is completely oversimplified.

    Aside from "it wasn't like the old game", the removal of base building can be seen as a good thing. Your focus is shifted completely off of bases and onto combat. This allows for combat to be significantly more intricate than before, but as several others have pointed out, the Orks and Tyranids don't play very uniquely.

    If you believe the singleplayer is overly easy and you can spam retreat to save yourself, you must have been playing on Normal. Try that on Primarch. I dare you. Yes, you can complete the campaigns on Normal with almost no thought involved. As soon as you start trying to maximize tokens (>80% of units killed, no squads incapacitated, very short clear time), as well as playing on Primarch, the single player becomes very challenging and thoughtful.

    As for other simplifications from the original DOW, these criticisms are completely valid. The game easily could have had more content and customization. The lack of scope in the game is a completely valid change, as it places more importance on individual units and how you use them in combat instead of "amass X number of unit Y, use this build order, rush". Those kinds of "strategies" can be just as repetitive and if you won't admit it you're lying through your teeth.

    I could have sworn PLAYING THE FULL GAME was a prerequisite to writing a review.
    Expand
  32. Oct 20, 2011
    5
    There is a lot of pros and cons to this game.
    The pros:
    -A lot of the controls is just like Company of Heroes where you you take your squad of heavy gunners and point them in a direction, throwing grenades, providing health to the rest of the squads.
    - There are neat talents that each squad has such as the scouts can go invisible, There is an assault marine group that jumps on the enemy
    and things of that nature.
    - As the game progresses, your squads gains experience, levels up, and you use that experience to upgrade either range attack, melee attack, health, talent., and in each one of them if you upgrade enough, you get to enhance your squads talents. - As for your squads being upgraded, so does your enemies units so when you face off the same type of enemy, they usually have a new trick up their sleeve that keeps the game new and fun.

    Cons:
    - The game has to be signed into windows live
    - There is no point to the save feature on this game because it SAVES everything anyways, so if you make a mistake on a mission, you can't even alt+ctrl+del out of the game to redo it as if nothing happened, IT SAVES IT ANYWAYS.
    - For the con above, it maybe great for a "gamer" but there is us who treat a video game as just that, a video game, something to let go, have a little fun because we already go through real life which really doesn't have redo.
    -No tutorial on how to play the game, and even though most games are self explanatory, It would be nice to have something tells you how to build up your squads levels because as you progress through the game, you will have to fail the mission just to build up your squads strength because the enemy is just too powerful and you are feeling a bit discouraged the first time you realize this.
    - Even though the game upgrades the enemies level, the game can get monotonous from having to die just to gain experience and acquire both structures from each mission.
    - Some characters in this game are really annoying in a nerdy way such as the scout, when one of the syndicates in his squad makes a kill, he will say " good kill syndicate, but you still have not earned your place". If I didn't need his squad in the game, I would never bring them on missions.
    Expand
  33. Dec 18, 2011
    0
    I played half of this poorly produced RTS and had so many issues with it, I decided to uninstall it 50 hours in. I normally beat games, but this travesty was so horribly produced it had almost no RTS value at all. Strategy is non-existent in this 'real time' piece of junk. I'd just like to iterate that i've never played a game with such a horrible saving system, unrealistic fighting scenarios, or horrible jerky controls (That you CANNOT reprogram, by the way). Slamming the escape button does nothing, and hitting ctrl alt del will do nothing but save the game. I uninstalled this after trying to give it a shot, but it was just so horribly made I couldn't continue any further. Real Warhammer doesn't consist of 4 heroes and 4 squad-mates taking on entire battalions of Orks. This is a flaming pile of **** Pirate it if you truly want to play it. Expand
  34. Nov 12, 2011
    4
    After playing this game for an hour, i thought to myself, 'why don't I like it?'
    Even though the physics and graphics on this game are good, the multiplayer is awful, the game shouldn't even be a Dawn of war. Compare this to DOW Soulstorm and you'll see a massive difference in gameplay (and graphics).
    If you are a fan of the 40k universe, then play this.
    If your knew to it, buy the previous games
  35. Dec 28, 2011
    4
    I was severely underwhelmed and disappointed by this game. Whereas DoW was a true RTS, DoW2 was pushed more in the direction of a hybrid of RTS and ARPG. The single player campaign was very disappointing as you control four of six marine squads going through the same exact handful of maps with the only difference being the loot you pickup and the boss at the end. A complete lack of creativity in mission structure and goals. You're either going through the map destroying everything or defending your position against several waves of enemies. It quickly becomes stale, boring, and repetitive with the only reason to continue on being what new abilities your squads get and new gear they come across.

    Mulitiplayer isn't bad, but nothing to write home about either. Last Stand is the most popular mode where you control a single hero unit and go up against increasing waves of enemies and try to last as long as possible.
    Expand
  36. Oct 4, 2013
    10
    Easily the best RTS game out there, even a few years after release (with Retribution expansion pack) compared to it Starcraft 2 feels like it is DoW's retarted cousin.
    There are 6 factions in multiplayer, each one feels very different from another and each has 3 different commanders which differentiate them further, making it very hard to be bored with it.
    There is an incredible amount
    of unit upgrades, wargear for commanders, abilities and tactics to use. Each race takes a good 30-50 hours to master, there are many people with 1 k hours clocked in and still playing (personally I have about 300 and counting). Larger maps with up to 6 players are even more challenging, with more emphasis on long term strategy rather than micromanagement.
    Yet the game is not by any means overwhelming, and it's quite easy to learn the basics.
    The only thing that's not done right is too few maps. I'd really like to see some maps coming in DLC format, but since THQ got bankrupt it's very unlikely.
    There is also survival horde-mode, where up to three players defend themselves from hordes of incoming enemies, after each game earning experience and wargear to upgrade their heroes. Although not very complex it is very addictive.
    As to singleplayer, the base game's singleplayer campaign is pretty good and lasts for a good 15 hours if you do all the side missions. Chaos Rising campaign is shorter but has new interesting features and multiple endings making it also a good chunk of fun. In Retribution, the advantage is that you can play it with any race of your choosing, not just Space Marines, but the disadvantage is worse story and less unit customization options. Personally the base game's campaign is my favorite.

    There are still people playing in time I write this review (october 2013), it's very easy to find someone to play with, both newbies and pros with thousands of hours. There are also mods (I recommend Elite mod) that add additional units and maps. Easily one of the best game I've played, and the best RTS.
    Get it, it's dirt-cheap these days. No excuses, go to a store
    Expand
  37. Apr 24, 2012
    8
    Dawn of war 2 is a great game to have for your pc. Campaign's a lot of fun. Multiplayer is very fun to play Campaign 8/10 Multiplayer 8/10 DOW 2 8.5/10
  38. May 15, 2012
    9
    I enjoyed this game. Its downside is it seems to lack some complexity. I haven't tried online mode, so this rating is only representative of campaign play.
  39. Jun 1, 2012
    8
    The campaign is a great mix of RPG and strategy game-play and the last stand is one of my favorite games but i preferred DoW 1's base building and larger armies to this game's shift to tactical game-play although many people will probably like it
  40. Oct 10, 2012
    10
    Finally, an RTS that requires a huge amount of skill and tactics in multi-player. Although I do see why people prefer the original, I believe that replacing the huge army with smaller, more tactical squads is a welcoming change. The campaign is entertaining, but would be much better if the AI had any intelligence at all. However, multi-player is where this game shines. Probably the best RTS I have played in a long time. Expand
  41. Jul 21, 2012
    8
    Someone else wrote the perfect summary in a review: Dawn of War II is a great game. But it doesn't feel like "Dawn of War", or like a real time strategy game. If you manage to ignore that, it's a lot of fun: it's basically part Diablo, part Jagged Alliance, which is great. It's also very fast paced, requires quite a bit of playing skill (on higher difficulty levels at least), and looks great -- a very visceral feel of obliterating those enemies of mankind. But what is missing is the feel that you're leading an *army*. That is something that many of us enjoyed in the original Dawn of War, and that is the real problem of the sequel: I don't mind that there's no base building, but the fact that I only play 4 squads of soldiers makes this a completely different type of game. I would have preferred if THQ would have created two series of games: the original RTS Dawn of War series, and a series called something like Dawn of War: Squad Combat, in which this game would belong. In summary, it's a pretty good game, but I miss the more epic scale of a real RTS. Expand
  42. Aug 5, 2012
    8
    Dawn of War II is weaker than its predecessor, but it's still a good game. The unit customization, experience and campaign are nice, but it lacks the strategic depth of the first game.
  43. Jan 7, 2013
    9
    One of the best looking RTS for sure.. Camping mod has som really interesting missions but also some boring ones. Story is good and characters are funny too. The multiplayer is best part of this game for sure.
  44. Feb 3, 2013
    10
    Me encanta en todo ámbito, las misiones son muy simpáticas. Me gusta el progreso de cada personaje e ir mejorando las aptitudes que estimes convenientes. Me gusta que siempre haya un jefe final al que vencer y los hay unos bien poderosos. Siendo solo un iniciando en el mundo warhammer, debo decir que me encanta esa ambientación futurista retro tecnológica, esa mezcla fascinante como de futuro y pasado. Lástima que sea tan opacado por starcraft, siendo que éstos tomaron "prestadas" muchos conceptos para su juego. En fin no he probado el multiplayer,pero la campaña está de lujo no tengo aspectos negativos que comentar. Expand
  45. Dec 11, 2012
    5
    The original DOW and it's expansions are superior. This is basically a reskinned Company of Heroes but with no base management. The campaign is fun co-op but it's isometric RPG-lite and you've probably played better before. If you're looking for a Warhammer 40k game, check out the original DOW (best single player campaign of the original series) and/or it's expansion Dark Crusade (best multiplayer of the original series) instead. Expand
  46. Jun 15, 2013
    5
    I've spent an afternoon with the campaign mode, so it is slightly engaging, but only having a few squads to deal with isn't very exciting and doesn't leave much for tactical scope. It's basically stand and fire and wait for the power ups to refresh, a bit like what I imagine WoW to be.

    I am a big fan of the first game, but really haven't had much fun with this one.
  47. Dec 11, 2012
    8
    A lot of people give their rating based on their taste instead to look at the game from a neutral position. It is a lot different than the first part, but it sure is a worthy part in the Warhammer series. I got really late into the Warhammer world, with DoW 1 being released in 2007 and the second one in 2009. I played the first one first to get into the story in case the second one is a continuation of the story. I understand that some people are upset it isn't like the first one but in my opinion it's even better. DoW 1 was a standard RTS just playing in the Warhammer universe, nothing special. But DoW 2 actually isn't like most of the other RTS games, it has some RPG elements that fit right in. The campaign is challenging if you're playing it on a hard difficulty, it's quiet boring in the beginning but you get more and more into the story and get hooked. With all the upgrades and skills for each squad you actually have a choice on how you want to do your missions. If you're looking for a little different RTS, DoW 2 is a good choice. Expand
  48. Mar 20, 2013
    9
    Dawn of War 2 is kind of a mix of strategy and RPG. It's different from other RTS's in the sense that units level up as they fight and get stronger. You can also equip different weapons on to different squads and change them up to your liking. At least in the singleplayer.

    but who gives a about the singleplayer, the MULTIPLAYER in this game is badass, and for me that's what really
    makes this game amazing. It's addicting, it's tactical, it's competitive, and it's simply awesome. It has a very high learning curve however, expect to get your ass kicked for a while before you actually get good at it. It doesn't have enough maps, and the pathing is a bit messed up, but the sheer attention to detail with the character models and superb voice acting mixed with incredible depth (in the multiplayer) makes this game a must for strategy fans in my books. Expand
  49. Jun 6, 2013
    8
    In many ways a very good game. It was however somewhat ruined by repetitive and unimaginative maps. It captures a lot of the atmosphere of the wh40k universe, and the units feel unique and have interesting development options.
  50. May 30, 2013
    1
    Big disappointment after Warhammmer 40k dawn of war Why remove base building just why... Played the game for 4-6 hours and got bored if you want a good RTS just buy dawn of war 1
  51. Nov 18, 2013
    1
    Absolute and utter crap. It seems like fun the first couple of missions, and a steady stream of gear and loot. However suddenly it turn into an absolute crapfest. You think you've got better and better gear, however for some reason the enemy gets just 10x faster upgrades or something. At midgame, my entire team got entirely wiped out from a single attack by a boss. It makes you angry because it's no strategy or tactics involved whatsoever. Feels like a cheap and crappy android pay-to-win game. As a former Warhammer player, I am sad to say this game has wasted 5-6 hours of my life. Do not buy. Expand
  52. Mar 5, 2014
    5
    I think it's a joke, that you can't build "normal" buildings like in the first Dawn of War. This means the campaign and the normal battles aren't really interesting. I don't like that the Imperial Army and the Chaos Space Marines aren't playable in this version.
  53. JamesA
    Jul 1, 2009
    0
    i'd like to first get my criticism out of the way. the campaign is somewhat bland on the normal difficulty with the warboss and the avatar bosses unimaginably powerfull. the muiltiplayer has two blade dulling flaws 1. the skill matching system (or whatever its called). it simply doesn't work. it doesn't match players in ability. you'll find yourself fighting many skilled opponents but often with little or no chance of winning. 2. the lack of character balance and strategy. this sounds wierd about such a series but the issue is that in 45 games, at least 38 games simply wound down to building one type of unit en masse and then steamrolling through the map. it is a strategy, but the only one ever used. no unit is overpowered, but many are underpowered, like the banshies, the rangers and the sm scouts. all of this needs to be addressed before i can give it a better score. that aside the game is beautifull, inovative and is a suitable successor to its predessessor, if just needs a bit of balance team TLC (but quite a bit to be honest). Collapse
Metascore
85

Generally favorable reviews - based on 67 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 64 out of 67
  2. Negative: 0 out of 67
  1. 85
    The single-player mash-up of RTS and RPG elements works really well, and the multiplayer is fast and exciting. Relic's reinvention of the Dawn of War brand is a breath of fresh (or possibly fetid, Tyranid infested) air.
  2. Dawn of War II is a highly innovative twist on the usual RTS formula that dares to think outside the box while staying true to the WH40k source material. Campaign co-op play is a great addition to the already superb single player game but the head-to-head multiplayer skirmish is a bit of a disappointment.
  3. Dawn of War was a finely tuned game with huge battles and many disposable troops. Dawn of War II is faster, lighter, smaller, in some ways more interesting and in other ways somewhat lacking in its execution. But taken as a whole it’s impossible to not recommend the game to 40K fans and to those who are willing to accept that this is not a linear sequel to an aging franchise.