The Maelstrom Battlefield Report shows Creative Director Jan Theysen and Senior Game Designer Elliott Verbiest playing Space Marines together against Hard AI Orks. Their task is to collect or destroy objectives that appear across the battlefield. Maelstrom is the ruleset, not the name of the map.
The useful lesson is how quickly objective movement, reinforcements and the economy become connected. The pair lose a short first attempt, change the match settings and try again. Their second attempt also ends in surrender. This is a pre-release demonstration to learn from, rather than a winning build order for the finished game.
Read the match setup correctly
The report combines several pieces of information that should stay separate. The two developers form an allied team, the opponents are AI, Hard is the selected difficulty and Maelstrom supplies the objective rules.
| Match detail | Demonstrated setup |
|---|---|
| Format | 2v2 Team Skirmish PvE |
| Allied faction | Both developers use Space Marines |
| Opponents | Orks controlled by Hard AI |
| Objective structure | Collect or destroy appearing targets |
| Outcome | First attempt lost; restarted attempt surrendered |
The report's Space Marine choices are examples of how the developers approach this particular match. They do not establish the only usable faction combination, the final balance or a guaranteed solution to Hard AI.
This is the Skirmish Settings interface, showing an Annihilation setup; it is not the Maelstrom report match.
Why mobility matters from the opening
The developers begin by discussing fast units because the next objective can require movement to another part of the map. Jan selects a bike-mounted Chaplain and points to Outriders as a mobile option. He also discusses Thunderhawk transport and keeping forces in reserve to respond where needed.
The important relationship is between the objective and the time it takes to reach it. An army that is strong in a direct fight can still be in the wrong place. The team cannot answer every new target simply by marching its entire force from the starting base.
In the first attempt, a developer waits near a potential objective location while Orks build pressure nearby. They are soon behind on points and fail to collect a target in time. That short opening shows why seeing an objective is not enough: you also need a force that can reach and secure it before the opportunity is gone.
For your own planning, separate three questions. Which force can get there, which force can survive there and what happens elsewhere if it leaves? The report offers tools for answering those questions, but it does not give a fixed timer that applies to every objective in every match.
The restart changes the plan
After the early loss, the pair restart and adjust settings to give themselves a longer contest before the points total fills. They describe the modes as having adjustable settings. The exact option names and values are not established by this report's spoken explanation, so there is no setting preset to copy here.
The more visible change is a forward Chapel Barracks near the centre. Elliott wants infantry available closer to the action rather than bringing every replacement from the original base. Jan contrasts that with automatically placing his own barracks at home and agrees that the centre offers shorter routes around the map.
That is a response to the Maelstrom task. The position is also near an energy point, giving the team another reason to establish a presence there. Forward production, movement distance and access to resources are part of the same decision.
It also creates a commitment: the building and the surrounding position need protection. The report later shows that a useful central position can become the place where the team must spend heavily just to remain alive. A forward structure is therefore an option to evaluate, not an instruction to place the same building in the same spot on every map.
Collect objectives while your ally covers
During the second attempt, the developers repeatedly call out appearing objectives and divide the work. At one point, one player covers approaching Orks while the other collects. Elsewhere, they acknowledge that a far-away target may be beyond what their current forces can reach.
Those exchanges provide a practical model for communication. Call out the task you intend to handle, whether you have enough force and whether you need your ally to protect the approach. If the team cannot contest both targets, make that choice explicitly instead of sending both players toward different tasks neither can finish.
The demonstration also includes a contested objective changing hands when a force gets close. Treat that as a moment to watch in the preview, not a complete written capture rule. The released interface and objective instructions will be the place to check exact interaction distances and requirements.
A useful viewing sequence is:
- Find the next objective and the allied force nearest to it.
- Check whether Orks already threaten the approach.
- Follow the players' call about who collects and who covers.
- Watch which units leave another position to make that possible.
- Check whether the team can hold its remaining ground after the move.
This keeps your attention on why the team acts, rather than turning one demonstration into a universal script.
Resource upgrades support the team
The developers pause to discuss upgrading power nodes. Their explanation is that the team's resource arrangements make those upgrades valuable to an ally as well as the player performing them. They also point to the resource display and its breakdown of income and allied contributions.
This matters because one player can be busy holding a contested area while the other improves the economy. In the report, the request to upgrade a node is part of active coordination, rather than a separate base-management chore with no connection to the fight.
The spoken demonstration does not provide every rule for sharing income. Do not assume that both players have an unrestricted common bank or can spend each other's resources in every situation. The narrower lesson is supported: the developers explicitly treat upgrades and allied resource contributions as team concerns.
When the game is available, inspect the resource display before making economic assumptions. Agree who is handling nearby upgrades and who is protecting the position while those investments are made. That is more useful than both players waiting for the other to notice the same resource problem.
Reinforce the position without losing mobility
As the Orks attack from different directions, the team considers a Thunderhawk Relay to reposition Space Marines. They also use defensive structures around the central area, including a Tarantula turret and Hammerfall Bunkers. The official faction description supports this broader combination of fortifications, reserves and Thunderhawk movement.
The report shows why those tools are being combined. A fortified area can provide support and shorter retreat routes, while transport helps forces reach an ally or another front. The players are trying to hold an important place without giving up the ability to respond elsewhere.
Later, one player stays to hold ground while the other tries to collect another objective. This is a clear change from simply keeping both armies together. It is also risky: the moving force still has to survive the objective attempt, and the player left behind must withstand the pressure.
The lesson is to judge the split by what each force can actually do. A plan that assumes one ally can hold indefinitely will fail if reinforcements consume everything that player earns.
Why the second attempt still fails
The team identifies more than one problem near the end. Orks are spread across the map, the opponents are ahead on points and the developers no longer have enough resources to rebuild their forces effectively.
One player explains that automatic reinforcement is keeping existing units alive but leaving too little money for new units. This is a concrete trade-off shown in the match: preserving a force and expanding that force can compete for the same resources.
They also struggle to keep the central resource position. Losing access there limits their ability to produce stronger units. Meanwhile, trying to recover distant objectives places more demands on an army already under pressure.
These problems reinforce one another. A team that cannot leave its defensive position misses objectives; a team that misses resources has fewer options for producing the army needed to leave. The report ends with the developers conceding the match rather than demonstrating a late recovery.
Do not turn that outcome into a claim that Hard AI is unbeatable or that Space Marines cannot play Maelstrom. It is evidence about these two preview attempts. Balance, settings, choices and execution all belong to that particular demonstration.
What to carry into a first Maelstrom match
Start by checking the selected rules and difficulty with your teammate. The report demonstrates that settings can affect the shape of a match, so both players should understand the lobby before treating a result as a test of one faction or strategy.
Then build a plan around the jobs the mode actually presents: reaching targets, securing them, maintaining resources and supporting an ally. The report's mobile units, reserves, forward production and fortifications are examples of tools for those jobs. Their value comes from the situation, rather than from a claim that one opening always wins.
Finally, watch your ability to replace losses as closely as the next objective marker. If every resource is going into reinforcement, say so before your ally assumes a fresh army is on its way. A shared understanding of that limit can change which objective you attempt and where you choose to defend.
Dawn of War IV is scheduled for release on 3 December 2026. Until the full game is available, use this Battlefield Report for a clear view of the developers' decisions and their consequences, while leaving exact final scoring, timings and balance to the released rules.