Worries about Total war: Warhammer

[Kalous]

After watching the videos on siege battles, which are just copy pasted designs that involve bum rushing walls without really having any ability to strategically plan, makes me worried. It is a huge change from previous games that seems like a really bad decision, and while I've never played Attila I think it was, city razing seems like an odd concept. The one screen shot that was released that showed half of the empire had been razed by various NPC factions seems like a really powerful and likely problem. Why would anyone attack a faction they cannot occupy except to clear their borders by razing everything?

Furthermore, the lack of ability for the great modders in the community to have any creative impact on the game is also a little sad. A lot of people really enjoy large, large scale battles. I hope that the ability to increase unit sizes/stacks will remain in the game. Because of these reasons I've really thought about just getting a refund on my perchance and just sticking to Call of warhammer.

Other thoughts?

[Pathfinder]

I'm absolutely with you about everything else, but to be honest razing settlements seems like the only way to go with a fantasy total war. Not only does it fit the merciless theme of Warhammer, but it means you'll never appear to have humans ruled by orcs and so forth.

It also helps stop the quick, linear progression of settlements if you have to start again from scratch, and promotes investing heavily in defense rather than just reconquering. Keep in mind that the lowest tier of buildings in modern Total Wars have all had huge returns comparative to what it takes to build them.

[Pyrrhus the Molossian]

I'm interested in the raze feature. When razed is the province permanently desolate or can you eventually rebuild?

[Kalous]

I'm interested in the raze feature. When razed is the province permanently desolate or can you eventually rebuild?

I believe it is completely desolate. I also agree that razing seems like an acceptable feature in total war, I just worry that it will make progression strange.

[captainkrunch]

Atilla had the same problem, by about turn 60ish unless you were playing as the WRE and actively defending most of the map was wasteland. However in Atilla cities could be rebuilt so I assume it is the same here, though I wonder how cities destroyed by Chaos will work, as we have already seen that they look quite interesting and "Historically" cities that were touched by Chaos in their history tend not to ever recover, just read up on Praag in Kislev for an example.

[Person012345]

After watching the videos on siege battles, which are just copy pasted designs that involve bum rushing walls without really having any ability to strategically plan, makes me worried. It is a huge change from previous games that seems like a really bad decision, and while I've never played Attila I think it was, city razing seems like an odd concept. The one screen shot that was released that showed half of the empire had been razed by various NPC factions seems like a really powerful and likely problem. Why would anyone attack a faction they cannot occupy except to clear their borders by razing everything?

Furthermore, the lack of ability for the great modders in the community to have any creative impact on the game is also a little sad. A lot of people really enjoy large, large scale battles. I hope that the ability to increase unit sizes/stacks will remain in the game. Because of these reasons I've really thought about just getting a refund on my perchance and just sticking to Call of warhammer.

Other thoughts?

I'm not as against the "half the empire razed" as some people because... well, it fits the lore, as far as I know. I am a little concerned about the AI's ability to tacitly work together to try and stop chaos though. It won't be fun if every game "ends" with an unstoppable (except by player) tide of chaos sweeping through and razing everything.

I got a refund a few weeks ago when they released azhag's quest battle. The fact that they appear to have done nothing to improve the AI beyond make it functional was the final straw for me, since AI is one of the most important things and it simply hasn't been improving in any significant manner over the years. And by "improving" I mean behaving more realistically. It doesn't have to be a tactical genius, but it should be more tactically competent than this by now. Also the unit sizes. I would personally advocate getting a refund on your pre-order and deciding whether to buy it based on post release reviews. I will be waiting until the game is somewhat finished. See what they do to fix and improve the game. See how much it's all likely to cost. Right now it doesn't look like it will be worth the asking price.

[DavidtheDuke]

I will be waiting until the game is somewhat finished. See what they do to fix and improve the game. See how much it's all likely to cost. Right now it doesn't look like it will be worth the asking price.

https://youtu.be/gx1_4dVFjqo?t=786 The AI's a bit better there and the battle is unscripted, I think the quest battles are just stupidly scripted to the point of making it too easy for the player.

Either way, that video's not exactly a stellar example of good AI either, so I'd still wait until you see lets plays of youtubers or something. Even then, since this is so important to you, I'd not play over 2 hours so you can steam refund if there's some giant bug the community finds that CA takes 6+ months to fix like with Rome 2's non existent siege AI.

[Person012345]

https://youtu.be/gx1_4dVFjqo?t=786 The AI's a bit better there and the battle is unscripted, I think the quest battles are just stupidly scripted to the point of making it too easy for the player.

Either way, that video's not exactly a stellar example of good AI either, so I'd still wait until you see lets plays of youtubers or something. Even then, since this is so important to you, I'd not play over 2 hours so you can steam refund if there's some giant bug the community finds that CA takes 6+ months to fix like with Rome 2's non existent siege AI.

There will be no 2 hours. The AI isn't like, the single issue, it was just for me that the poor showing in azhag's battle and others was the straw that broke the camel's back. I do not find myself remotely satisfied with almost any aspect of this game. Honestly - yes, the game looks really nice, the artists have done a good job with the visuals. The rest really doesn't live up to my expectations. A general lack of innovation and improvement over previous total wars, a lack of content, a lack of obvious passion. If some of these things had been missing then ok. I was expecting there to be some things held back, y'know deep not wide as they said. But I really see nothing here other than the visuals that stand out as something I want to slap down a whole bunch of cash on and they've implemented some thing that are blatantly obvious workarounds instead of just fixing the original problem, so the problem is still there. I will wait, I will look again in 6 months - a year to see if they've maybe reversed some of the workarounds and fixed some of the real problems instead (which, to their credit, they sometimes do). If they can work on it (which they will likely have to do if they want to sell their DLCs and expansions) and bring it up to par, I will see how much it will end up costing and I'll decide then.

It's possible I'm completely wrong, that the game will come out and all the reviews will say it's fantastic in every way, I'll be keeping an eye on the reviews either way.

[Roboute Guilliman]

My main disappointments about this game are firstly limited occupation zones for some factions, one sided sieges, magical ladders and maybe a limited multiplayer campaign mod (max 2players).

Now I haven't played the game yet, but if razing settlements is going to be like attila, then I will be disappointed. Playing as the Huns was boring, I didnt feel in control of the regions i razed, I hope playing Chaos Warriors won't be the same.
The new siege battles seem like something which is going to be extremely repetitive. It will though improve the AI. Magical ladders, well no comment.

And I really would like to see more than two players in campaign mod.

Well and lastly I am worried that chaos will be just generic chaos undivided. I would like to see how they implement the different gods and wish that you can run mono god armies. Sigvald is a playable faction leader, so maybe there is hope there.

[DavidtheDuke]

It's possible I'm completely wrong, that the game will come out and all the reviews will say it's fantastic in every way, I'll be keeping an eye on the reviews either way.

Can't say I agree with you there has been "no innnovation" given all the new mechanics in battle..

But regardless, I wouldn't really trust reviews alone, especially since many reviewers loved Rome 2. I'd watch lets plays etc.

I plan to buy the game 2 days before launch, watch lets plays and reviews post release, and pretend I haven't bought the game. Then I'll play over 2 hours if the game seems to hold up to community scrutiny for a few days or a week or so. If it's like Rome 2 where siege AI doesn't even exist it's going in the refund bin for now, not alpha testing their game again.

[Person012345]

Can't say I agree with you there has been "no innnovation" given all the new mechanics in battle..

But regardless, I wouldn't really trust reviews alone, especially since many reviewers loved Rome 2. I'd watch lets plays etc.

I plan to buy the game 2 days before launch, watch lets plays and reviews post release, and pretend I haven't bought the game. Then I'll play over 2 hours if the game seems to hold up to community scrutiny for a few days or a week or so. If it's like Rome 2 where siege AI doesn't even exist it's going in the refund bin for now, not alpha testing their game again.

New mechanics?

And when I say "reviews" I mean by reviewers I trust, and I also mean "first look" type things and they will likely all be video reviews. Primarily I'll be looking for the opinions of people like AJ and Arch, plus a few others who may or may not cover the game.

[craziii]

After watching the videos on siege battles, which are just copy pasted designs that involve bum rushing walls without really having any ability to strategically plan, makes me worried. It is a huge change from previous games that seems like a really bad decision, and while I've never played Attila I think it was, city razing seems like an odd concept. The one screen shot that was released that showed half of the empire had been razed by various NPC factions seems like a really powerful and likely problem. Why would anyone attack a faction they cannot occupy except to clear their borders by razing everything?

Furthermore, the lack of ability for the great modders in the community to have any creative impact on the game is also a little sad. A lot of people really enjoy large, large scale battles. I hope that the ability to increase unit sizes/stacks will remain in the game. Because of these reasons I've really thought about just getting a refund on my perchance and just sticking to Call of warhammer.

Other thoughts?

have you seen the EGX representation by a ca dev? it shows you exactly why there is a very limited siege map. it is all done to simplify BAI coding.

I have huge doubts, but I am willing to give it a chance now that I have seen the presentation. just wondering if it will be as boring as I think it will be. or we could all be in for a pleasant surprise.

[EternalSilence]

I also dont like the 'raze' ability.
its kinda stupid and pointless that half the map is 'gone' and cost you way to much money for resurrecting the city and building it up.

'-_-

[DavidtheDuke]

New mechanics?

And when I say "reviews" I mean by reviewers I trust, and I also mean "first look" type things and they will likely all be video reviews. Primarily I'll be looking for the opinions of people like AJ and Arch, plus a few others who may or may not cover the game.

Yes, like flying units and magic, or monstrous units. Even odd things like the luminark of hysh etc. It's quite a different setup in that regard.

[Person012345]

Yes, like flying units and magic, or monstrous units. Even odd things like the luminark of hysh etc. It's quite a different setup in that regard.

I don't really see how those are all that innovative. They change gameplay for sure, but none of those things have been implemented in a particularly revolutionary or interesting way. They're all very much imaginable in Attila, they're just not there because they wouldn't fit. Magic abilities have been around for quite a while, from what we've seen they aren't much different than magical abilities as initially implemented in Rome II (at least this time though there's justification). All they did was add some pretty graphics for them. These are really not shining examples of innovation. Though I didn't say there was none, just a "general lack", there are places where they could easily have shaken things up quite significantly compared to previous games but they didn't, I suspect they were kneecapped because they were using the same old engine, there's a limit to the amount of things you can change when using the same basis. There are various other things I'm disappointed about, for example the lack of attention to detail inmany ways when they specifically advertised deep not wide. I could go on but there's not much point, basically the game doesn't make me want to buy it any more.

[AlexSMD]

https://youtu.be/gx1_4dVFjqo?t=786 The AI's a bit better there and the battle is unscripted, I think the quest battles are just stupidly scripted to the point of making it too easy for the player.

Either way, that video's not exactly a stellar example of good AI either, so I'd still wait until you see lets plays of youtubers or something. Even then, since this is so important to you, I'd not play over 2 hours so you can steam refund if there's some giant bug the community finds that CA takes 6+ months to fix like with Rome 2's non existent siege AI.

Aye that sounds like the best strategy to follow regarding the pre-order thing.. Buy it a couple of days, try it, don't like it? Refund.. Solves many problems and whining with the Chaos DLC too.

[DavidtheDuke]

I don't really see how those are all that innovative. They change gameplay for sure, but none of those things have been implemented in a particularly revolutionary or interesting way. They're all very much imaginable in Attila, they're just not there because they wouldn't fit. Magic abilities have been around for quite a while, from what we've seen they aren't much different than magical abilities as initially implemented in Rome II (at least this time though there's justification). All they did was add some pretty graphics for them. These are really not shining examples of innovation. Though I didn't say there was none, just a "general lack", there are places where they could easily have shaken things up quite significantly compared to previous games but they didn't, I suspect they were kneecapped because they were using the same old engine, there's a limit to the amount of things you can change when using the same basis. There are various other things I'm disappointed about, for example the lack of attention to detail inmany ways when they specifically advertised deep not wide. I could go on but there's not much point, basically the game doesn't make me want to buy it any more.

They are big features that took a ton of work to get working, and the fact they seem to have been done right are good enough for me, the field battles are looking better than I expected. The game isn't perfect, but skirmish battles alone should be much more interesting than they were before.

That's not just pretty graphics frankly, a ton of work was needed to get flying units and magic working with all the effects I've seen, let alone what we have not seen (let alone getting monstrous units to be convincing) I suppose you can discount it if that's not important for you, but it didn't look easy to me or not a new area of gameplay for TW battles.

And personally as well, I'm glad they didn't shake up too many things. CA does this many times and just totally borks it at times, like making generals necessary, I don't think anyone likes that but the system's still in because I guess not enough don't like it at the end of the day.

[HigoChumbo]

a ton of work was needed to get flying units and magic working with all the effects I've seen, let alone what we have not seen

Well, I imagine most of that work went into animation and making the AI understand the feature. The mechanic itself, I have to agree that it's not implemented in such a revolutionary way. As I see it it's merely an additional "plane" battlefield on top of the regular one (and what I mean by this is that based on what we've been shown so far, air units are implemented and behave almost exactly like ground units). In any case, they still seem to be holding back showing us proper air-to-air combat (specially when it comes to units with multiple creatures), so I'll save my final opinion on this for then.

In any case, while not revolutionary, I'll also agree that the game does look good so far.

[DavidtheDuke]

Well, I imagine most of that work went into animation and making the AI understand the feature. The mechanic itself, I have to agree that it's not implemented in such a revolutionary way. As I see it it's merely an additional "plane" battlefield on top of the regular one (and what I mean by this is that based on what we've been shown so far, air units are implemented and behave almost exactly like ground units). In any case, they still seem to be holding back showing us proper air-to-air combat (specially when it comes to units with multiple creatures), so I'll save my final opinion on this for then.

In any case, while not revolutionary, I'll also agree that the game does look good so far.

Frankly I'd rather CA not rock the boat too much when it comes to implementing these things. I'd really hate to have a janky feature for this game I've waited for for so long, but yes I agree the actual system isn't exactly Einstein's latest work.

I just think the new mechanics are going to make custom battles and multiplayer that much more interesting. It'd be really disappointing if it had come with some very odd mechanic that no one ends up liking rather than CA just making them how most people imagine these things should be implemented.

I mean, they changed the siege mechanics kind of (or simplified, I guess) and I can't say I'm too satisfied with those.

I know some seem to think CA can do better, but I appreciate it when they do what I'd expect right anyway, especially for this title. I hope their next historical they try something more out there, tho, sure. The historicals are getting boring lately.

And yeah, I want to see a chaos dragon fight another dragon. There's tons of inter-combats I'm wondering how will work. Will Kholek swing at fell bets in frustration? :-D

[Markas]

And personally as well, I'm glad they didn't shake up too many things. CA does this many times and just totally borks it at times, like making generals necessary, I don't think anyone likes that but the system's still in because I guess not enough don't like it at the end of the day.

Well Spam Armies I hated in Rome and Med 2, you were fighting lots of pointless general-less battles against two or three unit stacks, though I think the sizable garrisons now will take away some of the Captains' use. Allowing Hero agents to become captains (essentially generals without command abilities or stances) I wouldn't mind though. I'd take a Witchhunter and a unit of Spearmen into Sylvania, for a start.