mothwentbad: I think DC was sort of interesting, but they didn't quite manage to communicate to the player well enough. There might be a gem in there, but as someone who got DC as a bonus for kickstarting D:OS, I wasn't prepared to dig for it without more tutorial support than I got. RTS has the most brutal learning curve of almost any genre, and it probably needed Star Craft-style intro campaign levels, honestly.
However, this is definitely the sort of thing that takes a lot of hours to make. They would be better off putting this kind of stuff into a DC2, if they were to ever do that. I get the feeling that just adding more to DC isn't the way to go, and that they shouldn't go back to DC until they're ready to reinvent the wheel as needed and figure out what worked and what didn't.
I agree, the RTS segments could have used better tutorial levels. As someone who doesn't play every RTS out there, I struggle with that section, and usually try to stack the odds enough in my favor I can use auto-battle to bypass it as much as possible. I should try to wrap my head around it sometime as flying around as the dragon roasting the enemies is fun.
Honestly, though, I prefer turn-based strategy to RTS. I have enough problems micro-managing as it is without the added pressure of an AI or twelve simultaneously trying to make my life miserable. I get that from the original StarCraft and WarCraft III, heh. I still have fun with DC anyway, and I will likely try to understand the RTS segments better as time goes on. =)
Flynn