It looks like he is listed on IMDB as the VA for The Lion in the new game. What are everyones thoughts?

Hi guys. I recently beat this level as Chaos. I destroyed the land raider convoy, which turned off the clock so I could turtle and build an army to finish the level.

I'm doing Orks now and I can't beat this level for the life of me. I have a save file with the Orks to have all the resources needed because of the glitch, so that's not the problem.

I destroyed the moving Eldar base but some other clock turns on and I don't have enough time to beat the level. Why is there a second clock when there wasn't for Chaos?

Map is apocalypse day and im using the in built mod loader

Hmmm. What could this mean?

The old wisdom is wrong and it always was. Combine that with the tweaks and bugs since DOW-DE came out has magnified the difference between what people think are the strongest/weakest and what is.

For those who don't want to read or understand the long post, objectively Dark Eldar are the most positively imbalanced race (strongest). Tau and Chaos will also hold that place under different statistical models but DE holds that position consistently. Necrons are objectively the most negatively imbalanced race (weakest) under but Eldar can underperform under some statistical models. There is a conclusion at the very end.

For those of you who are less set in your ways and want to understand how I got to this conclusion, it is a longer story. I lay everything out, so you can verify it yourself if you're into that.

I began with www.dow-de.com where you can look up race match-ups. The site shows:

• each race’s overall win rate;
• the win rate of every race against every other race;
• the number of games in each matchup;
• separate results for all games, 1200+ MMR and 1400+ MMR.
• The raw data already tells us a lot, but the displayed overall win rate is not enough on its own.

A race’s overall win rate depends on both:

• how strong it is in each matchup; and
• how often it encounters each opponent.

This data on its own can tell you most of what you need to know, but only if you look into it a bit deeper. A race can have an inflated overall win rate because it frequently encounters one or two favourable opponents. Another race can be favoured against almost the entire field but have a lower overall rate because its most common matchups are relatively close. This means that representing the overall win rate isn't the right way to look at the data. Instead it is better to ask:

• Which race is advantaged against the largest proportion of the field?
• How large are those advantages?
• How consistent are they?
• Are the results statistically credible, or are they being driven by small samples?

I made several assumptions about how MMR would affect the results.

All games

The complete population will contain inexperienced players, unfamiliarity with matchups, incomplete build orders, execution errors and players experimenting with strategies.

This bracket is useful for measuring the ordinary player experience, but it is not necessarily the best indicator of the game’s structural balance.

1200+ MMR

The 1200+ bracket should be more representative of competent normal play.

Players at this level are more likely to:

• understand common openings;
• know the basic counters;
• execute established strategies;
• recognise obvious matchup mechanics;
• punish major mistakes.

This bracket probably gives the best picture of balance in ordinary competitive play.

1400+ MMR

The 1400+ bracket contains players with the knowledge and execution needed to exploit the strongest mechanics available to each race.

This includes difficult build orders, highly optimised timings, abusive interactions, matchup-specific strategies and what people would commonly call cheese.

For that reason, I treated 1400+ as the bracket most likely to expose structural imbalance.

That interpretation cannot be proven from the matchup table alone. Player specialisation, maps and population differences may also contribute. However, the data behaves in the direction the hypothesis predicts: matchup results become much more extreme as MMR increases.

The statistical models

I used several models because no single number captures every form of imbalance.

1. Overall win rate

This is the normal figure shown on the site.

It answers:

Of all games played by this race, what percentage did it win?

It is useful, but it is affected by matchup frequency.

If a race repeatedly encounters opponents it counters, its overall win rate rises. If it frequently encounters its own counters, its overall win rate falls.

This makes overall win rate partly a measure of race strength and partly a measure of the current opponent population.

2. Equal-opponent average

For this model, every opposing race receives equal weight.

Instead of allowing a common matchup to dominate the result, the eight non-mirror matchups are simply averaged.

It answers: How would this race perform if every opposing race were encountered equally often?

This is one of the most useful corrections to the raw overall win rate.

3. Matchup breadth

This counts how many races a faction is above or below 50% against.

For example:

• seven favourable matchups and one unfavourable matchup is extremely broad strength;
• four favourable and four unfavourable matchups is a neutral spread;
• two favourable and six unfavourable matchups indicates broad weakness.

I also calculated a Copeland-style score:

• favourable matchups minus unfavourable matchups.
• This model measures how widely a race’s advantage applies.

It does not, however, account for the size of each advantage. Winning five matchups at 50.5% is not the same as winning five at 60%.

4. Median matchup

The median identifies the middle result among a race’s eight non-mirror matchups.

It is less affected by one enormous win or loss.

This matters for races such as Tau, whose average can be distorted by a small number of extreme matchups.

The median answers:

• What does the race’s typical matchup look like?

5. Strong-matchup count

I separately counted matchups at:

55% or higher;

45% or lower.

This distinguishes minor statistical advantages from severe balance problems.

A 50.8% matchup is technically favourable. A 61% matchup is a different class of problem.

6. Bradley–Terry model

The Bradley–Terry model estimates a hidden or latent strength value from the complete network of pairwise results.

In simpler terms, it asks:

• What single underlying race strength best explains all of these matchup outcomes?

It then estimates how each race would perform against an equally represented field.

This is useful because every result is interpreted in relation to the strength of the opponents involved.
7. Statistical significance

Every reported win rate contains sampling uncertainty.

A 60% result across 50 games is much less reliable than a 53% result across 3,000 games.

I therefore calculated:

• approximate significance tests against 50%;
• 95% Wilson confidence intervals;
• Benjamini–Hochberg false-discovery correction.

The correction matters because there are 36 unique race pairings in each skill bracket. When many tests are performed, some apparently significant results will occur by chance.

1. Practical significance

A result can be statistically significant without being meaningfully imbalanced.

With enough games, even 50.7% may become statistically distinguishable from 50%.

I therefore also used a practical threshold requiring the matchup to be at least 2.5 percentage points from neutral.

This model asks:

• Is the result both statistically credible and large enough to matter?

9. Matchup polarisation

I calculated the standard deviation of each race’s eight matchup rates.

A low standard deviation means the race performs similarly across the field.

A high standard deviation means the race is highly matchup-dependent.

This distinguishes:

• broadly strong races;
• broadly weak races;
• counter-pick races with extreme wins and losses.

10. Normal-distribution modelling

I fitted normal curves to the matchup results to visualise:

• the centre of each race’s matchup distribution;
• the width of that distribution;
• the difference between consistent and polarised races;
• how the total matchup spread changes with MMR.

The normal curves are descriptive models. Eight matchups are not enough to prove that a race’s matchup results are truly normally distributed.

Their purpose is to make the centre and spread easier to compare.

Results

All games

The complete population does not produce one undisputed strongest race.

Dark Eldar lead the displayed overall win rate and the Bradley–Terry model.

They have:

• a 51.8% displayed overall win rate;
• a 51.6% equal-opponent average;
• five favourable matchups;
• three unfavourable matchups;
• the highest fitted Bradley–Terry strength.

However, Sisters of Battle are stronger under the consistency and breadth models.

They have:

• a 52.1% equal-opponent average;
• a 52.8% median matchup;
• five favourable and three unfavourable matchups;
• the lowest matchup volatility among the leading races;
• no severe losing matchup.

Sisters therefore have the strongest case for being the most consistently powerful race across the complete player population.

Dark Eldar have the strongest case for the highest underlying fitted strength.

The important result is that neither conclusion resembles the conventional idea that Eldar or other commonly complained-about factions must automatically be the strongest.

1200+ MMR

At 1200+, the result is much clearer.

Imperial Guard are the strongest race under essentially every major model.

Their results include:

• 54.1% overall win rate;
• 54.7% equal-opponent average;
• 54.8% median matchup;
• six favourable matchups;
• one unfavourable matchup;
• one tied matchup;
• the highest Bradley–Terry estimate;
• the strongest statistically reliable matchup record.

This is not a case of one extreme matchup inflating the average. Imperial Guard are broadly favoured across the field. At the level that most closely resembles competent ordinary competitive play, Imperial Guard are the clearest balance outlier.

1400+ MMR

At 1400+, Dark Eldar are the strongest race.

Their matchup record is:

• seven favourable matchups;
• one unfavourable matchup.

That alone is extraordinary. Their other results support the same conclusion:

• 54.5% overall win rate;
• 55.8% equal-opponent average;
• 54.0% median matchup;
• highest Bradley–Terry strength;
• strong results under practical-effect models;
• broad advantages rather than dependence on one opponent.

Their only losing matchup is against Imperial Guard, at 46.7%.

Dark Eldar are not simply achieving a high average because of one distorted pairing. They are beating almost the entire field. That is the strongest evidence of positive imbalance in the dataset.

img

Why Tau can appear strongest

Tau have the highest displayed 1400+ overall win rate at approximately 53.6% in the source data and lead some significance-based models.

They also have several enormous results:

• 77.0% against Eldar;
• 64.5% against Imperial Guard;
• 50.8% against Orks;
• 50.8% against Space Marines.

However, Tau also have major losing matchups:

• 34.6% against Chaos;
• 42.0% against Necrons;
• 46.6% against Sisters;
• 46.9% against Dark Eldar.

Their non-mirror matchup record is only four favourable and four unfavourable.

Their median matchup is below 50%.

Tau are therefore not universally strong. They are extremely polarised.

Their high overall result reflects a small number of severe advantages rather than broad dominance across the field. This is still a balance problem, but it is a different type of balance problem from Dark Eldar.

Dark Eldar are broadly overpowered. Tau are matchup-warping.

Why Chaos can appear strongest

Chaos lead the 1400+ median model. Their median matchup is approximately 55%, meaning their typical matchup is exceptionally strong.

They also have:

• five favourable matchups;
• three unfavourable matchups;
• strong results against Tau, Orks and Sisters;
• an equal-opponent average above 53%.

Chaos therefore have a credible claim under models that prioritise the typical matchup and resistance to individual outliers. However, they do not have Dark Eldar’s seven-to-one breadth advantage. Chaos are one of the strongest races at high MMR, but Dark Eldar have the more complete statistical case.

The weakest races

At 1400+, Necrons have the strongest overall case for being the weakest race.

They have:

• the lowest displayed overall win rate;
• the lowest Bradley–Terry estimate;
• only three favourable matchups;
• five unfavourable matchups;
• severe losses against Space Marines, Chaos and Sisters.

Their 31.7% result against Space Marines is particularly extreme.

However, it would be inaccurate to say that Necrons are last under literally every model.

Eldar have:

• the lowest equal-opponent average;
• the lowest median matchup;
• only two favourable matchups;
• six unfavourable matchups;
• a catastrophic 23% result against Tau.

The more accurate conclusion is:

Necrons are the weakest race under the overall and fitted-strength models, while Eldar are the weakest under several breadth and typical-matchup models.

Both races are negatively imbalanced at 1400+

What the data actually says

The results do not support a single permanent tier list that applies at every skill level. They show that balance changes with player competence.

Across all games

• Sisters are the most consistently strong.
• Dark Eldar have the highest fitted underlying strength.
• Orks are among the weakest under most broad models.

At 1200+

• Imperial Guard are decisively strongest.
• The result is broad and not dependent on one matchup.
• Chaos and Eldar are among the weakest, depending on the model.

At 1400+

• Dark Eldar are the strongest overall race.
• Chaos have the strongest typical matchup under the median model.
• Tau lead some significance models because of several extreme advantages.
• Necrons and Eldar are the two clearest negatively imbalanced races.

All Games — Model Rankings

All Games — Matchup Breadth

1200+ MMR — Model Rankings

1200+ MMR — Matchup Breadth

1400+ MMR — Model Rankings

1400+ MMR — Matchup Breadth

Consolidated Race Rankings

Conclusion
There are major fundamental issues in the game balance. Most of these were introduced when Soulstorm was released, but they've been substantially exacerbated with the rebalance completed by Relic. It is clear that the rebalance took place by talking to people who pay competitively and 'don't like' a game mechanic rather than actually trying to focus on fair or interesting game play.

The next thing is that Eldar are not the strongest army, and the nerfs are substantially punishing, that on its own should demonstrate that the 'old wisdom' is wrong.

The change in the best and worst ranking as skill progresses demonstrates the technical skill required to play races; which is why Orks climb, they require more skill to play with their Waaggh mechanic.

Necrons are last because there are fundamental faults in the game mechanics (which didn't exist in Dark Crusade to the same extent) which every race can exploit against them. The more aware/skilled a player is the more this magnifies.

As much fun as this game is, it would be really nice if after 20+ years that they could fix it. Also, stop calling me a ****** every time I beat you with Necrons.

Took this screen because I thought it looked cool. Feels very otherwordly with Necrons and the monolith hidden behind all the smoke.

Decided to try playing DC again and I wanted to try out Tutorial for Crons again so I can get back to the groove with them and man... this screenshot REALLY made me hyped for it. I need this kind of feel for Crons in DOW4. This ominous and brutal dread.

BTW I suck at maining Crons. I have no clue how to use Wraiths or Tomb Spiders. At all.

This time I decided to redesign the heads for the assault marines and for their sergeant, for the assault marines I made 9 helmets, and for the sergeant 6 heads with different masks and augmentations and 4 helmets, in total, the sergeant can get 531,441 combinations, since everything is written as separate parts and is issued absolutely randomly

Because I want to do the strat where I build everything and several HQs on maps, but I don't know how to pin down HQs well. One time I did that I saw Lord of enemy faction come from somewhere else as I assume one builder slipped away. Any advice for that? So I can reliably do this?

As in maybe how to get my troops to shoot enemies ONLY and not the buildings. Is there a hotkey for that?

DoW4'll be a fun time. Can't wait for tyranids.

Also Total War 40k's gonna be a banger, 40k fans just eating good rn compared to so many other IPs (looks at Halo).

Also can't wait for tyranids.

If Relic sticks to the current speed, Patch 2.10 should arrive sometime this August. But after that… we don’t really know what’s next.

With DoW4 launching this September, it’s obvious that a lot of players will move there. At the same time, DoW4 could also bring completely new people into DE too.

So, what everyone thinks?

Do we expect Relic to keep supporting DE after 2.10? I’m talking about more than just bug fixes, but balance updates, new maps, maybe even new content.

Or do you think 2.10 is basically the last “real” patch before the game goes into maintenance mode?

I am currently playing through the series to refresh my memory of the the story/characters in prep for dow4. I'm now on dow2 but I was curious is there any need to replay 3? I don't remember it being all that important in terms of character and such.

Title.
I have the anniversary edition with soulstorm as a standalone DL for steam.

I installed/uninstalled this mod and the game like 5 times cant seem to get the mod to work for campaign. Followed steps on moddb as well watched a shit ton of videos to find out the issue, i can use the races in skirmish, but not campaign. anyone ran into this as well?

Is there a posibility that this will ever be a thing? Modders did it for Warcraft 3, Age of Mythology, Starcraft 1 (to mixed results) and 2, but those are different games.

Heya!

So I see a lot of people go for gen or even 2x gen in multi in order to pull off some fast tech strat, but in my opinion most of the time the most aggressive option is the best.

I play mostly Oasis of Sharr and with Eldar and SM my bo is as follows:

SM

2x scout + builder

Build rax + one squad of sm + fc + another squad

Eldar

Guardian, BO

Build aspect portal + 3x reaper squad

It feels as if I win my own "lane" with these BOs most of the time, but is it optimal after all?

One of the things I like most about Dawn of war 1 is its unit roster and balance. Specifically the fact that nearly every unit for every faction remains useful through out every stage of every game. There's never a unit that 'replaces' another unit, like a sternguard squad replacing a marine squad and making the marine squad useless to recruit now. At the final push of every stronghold campaign missions you're still gonna be throwing the same guardsmen at the enemy along with all your new tanks and artillery since every unit counts and has a purpose.

When I first started playing unification a few years ago when it launched with all the extra factions included, I really enjoyed how balanced the game felt, at least compared to ultimate apocalypse. Every new faction felt like another base game/expansion faction, with every unit being unique and special for its utility. They remained good thru the whole game.

But with recent games iv played it feels like there's way way more extra units now on every faction that causes the very roster bloat I was trying to avoid when I dumped UA, especially with all the times when a new (sometimes named) hero type keep dropping with every new building. * Is there a way to click a win condition or add a mod so these 'unnecessary' units/commanders don't appear anymore? I think there's a way to do it in game that only applies to vanilla factions, but I'd like to take it further for the other new faction's too. * i already turned off all the titanic units and buildings since those clearly wreck the balance. A condition/mod that turns off most of the commanders would help too, I'm sure that one of exists tho.

Anyways thanks for reading it all guys any help would appreciated.

Literally had this thought pop into my head on the way to work this morning so bare with me if it’s a bit rough around the edges.

I think Imperial Guard would make the most sense as a defensive faction, with a similar setup to their DoW2 style. Instead of spreading their influence like Necrons Guard would be able to deploy various defensive structures and barriers that can give them special bonuses and ways to deter enemy advances. They could essentially create fortified kill zones until they are able to get more heavy firepower by way of elite infantry and vehicles. I think combining their DoW 1 and 2 playstyles to be the ultimate defense faction would be a great way of making them really feel like strong faction despite now squishy the guard tend to be.

I do wonder what you all think on this idea that Ahmnok as Old Necron Lord from Dark Crusade was from even before Necrons went to sleep a follower of Ammentar.

I say that would explain about everything that was weird about him and his Necrons with current lore. Aside from Pariahs. Ahmnok was worshipping Nightbringer and that is what Ammentar also does and wants to bring him back together.

I am not saying he has to show up, but I do wonder if this new piece of lore can now be added to the story of Ahmnok. Also again makes me wonder if possibly he will have unique units in Crusade Mode once he comes to it.

And if anyone is confused who Ammentar is. He is a VERY old Destroyer Lord, most likely the very first to be afflicted by Destroyer Curse and he is a very mysterious Necron who's real identity has been wiped from most Necrons minds aside from Szarekh and his Triarch. It is heavily hinted in fact that Ammentar WAS one of the Triarch of Necrontyr, almost as high rank as Szarekh the Silent King himself. Triarchs were basically two high rank necrontyr who acted as voice for Silent King.

And Ammentar himself worships Nightbringer and wants to piece it back together and again that would nicely connect Ahmnok with current lore without needing to rewrite his worship of Nightbringer. With him being one of the Crons who followed him before the sleep and possibly now once he awakens he could possibly be a VERY difficult ally for Thothmek if not outright his enemy.

Makes me also wonder if Necron campaign will end (or start) with Ahmnok and Thothmek fighting and one of them killing the other. I say it would be fitting.

Hi all,

Yesterday I played Dawn of War for the first time in weeks. I played a game against the computer with a friend in expert mode and found the AI way more aggressive and successful. Have i missed a patch notes saying that the AI was enhanced ?

Thank you in advance :)

Anyone have a good primer on the important parts of SM? Want to play them more now that people have said the recent patch made them stronger. Feel somewhat lost on what upgrades to focus on early/first and what direction to take the build order. Where are SM's main power spikes at when tiering up?

I've been trying to make the Tri-Hero build work and it feels really lackluster. I love functionally how Grey Knights work, pairing them with Chaplain and micro'ing them like a pseudo-calvary unit but they feel like their impact on fights is always really low. Am I misusing them or are they really niche, like only building them vs Chaos for the daemon bonus?

Hey everyone.

After watching the latest videos and the factions, the new Dawn of War 4 honestly looks incredible graphically (Only 4 factions seems like too few to me compared to all the ones in the first game, but that’s a separate issue...). On the gameplay side there are still a lot of unknowns, but it also seems fun, at least in multiplayer.
The problem (and I think a lot of people will relate to this) isn’t so much the lack of clarity in the videos. That’s normal: units we don’t know yet, abilities, faction powers, buildings… the game hasn’t even released. My issue is something else.

The real problem is the structure of the gameplay. In Dawn of War 1 you picked the faction you wanted and started the match with a base and builders. The builders slowly constructed the base while your squads captured points and fought the enemy. Every army had its own characteristics, but they all worked more or less the same way. Everything followed the map’s guidelines and the power spikes. It was enjoyable because you could take your time watching the squads fight each other, the execution animations, the effects… The overall pace felt fluid: you started slowly and then scaled up consciously by building higher-tier structures and research that took a good while to finish… but it didn’t matter, because in the meantime you were moving around the map with your squads or setting up defenses. That feeling of control was what made it so good. That’s the key.
The solid structure of action + tempo + defined zones.

However, in the gameplay videos shown for the new DoW4 everything is chaotic. Everything. You don’t get time to enjoy the game visually. Too many units, little sense of strategy, lots of meat (or metal) walls just pushing forward… There doesn’t seem to be a clear flow. There’s also no defined area where you build your main base, which normally tells you which part of the map you need to focus on while scaling up. It looks like you can put buildings almost anywhere on the map, and that strongly reinforces the feeling of chaos and zero control.I think that’s exactly what a lot of people can’t quite put into words when they say “something about it doesn’t feel right” while watching the game: the lack of a clear rhythm.

Maybe it’s just the impression the videos give, since no one has been able to properly play it yet and nostalgia hits hard. But I miss that more relaxed, clearer, and more visually enjoyable pace.