Warhammer TW Wishlist.

[Costin_Razvan]

YOu keep acting like CA have shown great strides in how competent they are already.

So you'd prefer we accept mediocrity?

[Lord Baal]

Oh, and they take heed of what the Call of Warhamer has done and improve over it.

[Theedge634]

So you'd prefer we accept mediocrity?

I think we'd prefer you guys accept reason, and plausibility. Comparing games with grand total of 130-200 models at any one time, many of which are things like tanks and planes (which you don't have to actually give animations) is not a relevant comparison to a battle of 4-10 thousand models, every single one having hundreds of animations.

[Costin_Razvan]

Hundreds of animations my ass. Also it is irrelevant how many models you have since animations are reused.

People think that the crazy scale of Total War makes it justified for it to be subpar in everything else. You people are the reason CA gets away with all the things they've done since Empire.

[Theedge634]

Oh, and they take heed of what the Call of Warhamer has done and improve over it.

Yea, I think possibly the MOST important thing that CA can do, is make a solid infrastructure... and give the modders tools, so that we can customize the experience to what everyone wants... because I'll be kind of sad if Chaos Daemons, Beastmen, and Hordes are all combined into the same faction. If they give the modders enough models to work with though, they can work around it and separate them into their own factions.

[Theedge634]

Hundreds of animations my ass. Also it is irrelevant how many models you have since animations are reused.

People think that the crazy scale of Total War makes it justified for it to be subpar in everything else. You people are the reason CA gets away with all the things they've done since Empire.

I don't know about that man... I haven't played Rome in a long time, and I'm no CA fanboy... but let's be serious, who's pumping out good games right now?... Bethesda?.... Blizzard has been awful for years, and Company of Heroes 2 was an unmitigated disaster for Relic. Most large gaming companies are inconsistent as hell.... I don't think gaming companies get away with anything, and to be honest I think its this new generation of gamers that is just incredibly entitled and have standards that can be impossible to meet for game designers. Many of them don't remember that many of their favorite older games were horrific buggy messes on release.

It's easy to sit there and expect greatness, but if that's what you want... you should get into coding and work in the industry so you can back it up. I personally think that Divide et Impera for Rome 2, is one of the best games out there right now... along with the HPP mod for Hearts of Iron 3. And before you talk about mods making the game better, I'd argue that that's been true of the gaming industry for over a decade... Myth 2: Soulblighter was one of the top 3-5 pc games all time in my opinion... and the mods that came out for that game gave it a large community for almost a decade.

[HigoChumbo]

YOu keep acting like CA have shown great strides in how competent they are already. If they can get boats to only now, barely, properly dock on a fixed beach point, I have extreme doubts the more complex parameters to have a griffon attack with any semblance, dragon-fire strafing, etc. That is not "perfectly doable". It is extremely complex code and wall pathfinding isn't even solid, and things still feel wonky in something that is relatively basic as Rome 2.

I guess we'll see, I think you're way too optimistic.

I'm farm from optimistic, specially after Rome 2, and specially considering that leaks seem to point out that TW:Warhammer will be developed using the current engine.

I'm just trying to debunk the myths of some features being "unreallistic to be asked for", and also contributing with my grain of sand in hopes that it might help inspire or give ideas to someone at CA, even if its just the janitor.



By the way, David, the fact that it's perfectly doable (and it's a fact because it's already done) does not mean they can do it with the current engine, with a greedy publisher whiping their backs, or with a total lack of ambition.

I've played literally all these games

I'm glad to see a fellow Ground Control player. Looks like I'm not alone in this world.

A new engine would be fantastic, but that would likely shift the game 2 years further out.

And here is to my hopes of CA not being so sortsighted as to having started the development of Warhammer TW in Warscape.

The request of a new engine are not preciselly new. They have had plenty of time to develop a new engine since Empire TW. Let's hope the wake up call came before Warhammer, because I personally think that a Warhammer game done with the current engine would be a disaster.

In any case, I'm happy to wait. I much prefer to play a great game in 2016/2017 than to play the game this year, be disappointed and then having to wait 15 years for the next chance of seing a decent Warhammer grand strategy game.

There's a COMPLETE and HUGE difference between designing a game around the possibility of flying units, and adding them in after the source infrastructure and code has already been written.

Exactly, and that's one of the reasons why I keep saying that a Warhammer game in the current engine just won't cut it.

I would also rather them discard the flying units if it meant more time modeling, skinning, and animating all the factions, and working on other more integral parts of the game.

It's not like the modellers, texturers and animators develop the entire game.

It is made by very different and specialized professionals, you don't want the artists to sit idle at the office while the programmers crunch their way to release, right?

In my opinion when CA decides to add units with flight it will likely be related to a World War 1/2 game.

The controls of WW2 planes would be handled dramatically different from those required by Warhammer. A WW2 TW game (something I doubt we will see anytime soon) would probably deal with air units as "abilities", as deployable airstrikes (like in Company of Heroes and World in Conflict.

Also, I feel consistently referencing old games with flying units is complete irrelevant, and really isn't conducive in understanding HOW they will be able to add these units to the game.

For all we know, It could be a mobile game. I highly doubt it, but nothing indicates that it won't.

I'm just giving ideas of how they could do it, not trying to predict how it will be. I'm already assuming that most likely 90% of the stuff suggested here won't make it into the game.

Im not even sure that Rome 2 has a physics model to use for the flying units... I watch a video like this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6KfEddfUjI

And I see how little the elephants actually interact with the soldiers that they are attempting to trample, then I wonder how on earth are they gonna animate a Pegasus Knight swooping down at anywhere from 40-70 mph hitting infantry then flying back up...

Yet another reason to highlight the need of a new engine. And again, I'm not saying that they WILL do that. I'm saying that they definatelly SHOULD.

then I wonder, how high up are they gonna fly?

I would not need them to fly out of the map. Maybe a system with 2 or 3 height "layers", so to speak, could work. Ground (fighting as normal ground units), mid air (being able to fight bot air to air and air to ground while remaining in range of close archers) and high air (out of the range of ground units immediatly under them, but still targetable by other air units). And the highest layer should not be so far from the ground as to up with the camera ratio.

I'd honestly be as happy as an oyster with just 2 fixed layers just as in Battle for Middle Earth (ground and air).

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Oysters are really happy

that doesn't even begin to explain the EXTREMELY MASSIVE issue of aerial combat between monsters and cavalry. How are 20 Pegasus knights gonna fight a mounted dragon

Air to air combat is already done in a very basic way in Battle for Middle Earth. If there is absolutelly 0 things they could to to deal with that (which I think shouldn't be the case), they could always restrict air-to-air combat to ranged attacks, or just make a not at all fancy, old school animation (like in Warcraft 3. In that game you even had air units that could go from melee to ranged, such as hypogriphs). Also, I wouldn't mind if there were some units that coulndn't attack other units AT ALL. That would make army composition to counter that more important. Think how Frost Wyrms (aka flying, ice breathing dragons) in Warcraft 3 couldn't attack air units, or how an orc grunt had nothing to do but run if attacked by an air unit.

not unless we're looking at a completely new engine does it seem even remotely possible.

I'm just going to smile in agreement this time.



Hopefully CA can see the underlying meaning of that smile.

[Theedge634]

For all we know, It could be a mobile game. I highly doubt it, but nothing indicates that it won't.

I'm just giving ideas of how they could do it, not trying to predict how it will be. I'm already assuming that most likely 90% of the stuff suggested here won't make it into the game.

Well, I think Tim Heaton saying, “We’ll be doing the Warhammer universe justice in a way that has never been attempted before. We’re bringing those 25 years of experience and expertise in extremely high-scoring games to bear, delivering a Warhammer experience that videogamers will absolutely love" pretty much negates any thought of it being some minor tablet game or something. I mean it would be pretty ridiculous to make a statement like that and follow it up with Warhammer: Clash of Clans.

The controls of WW2 planes would be handled dramatically different from those required by Warhammer. A WW2 TW game (something I doubt we will see anytime soon) would probably deal with air units as "abilities", as deployable airstrikes (like in Company of Heroes and World in Conflict.

If this part is indeed true, than I really, truly doubt we'll get any flying units in the game unless it was super easy to implement... If it's a large and difficult issue to implement, than it would be a lot of effort for a layer that's only going to be useful in one game.

[DavidtheDuke]

So you'd prefer we accept mediocrity?

I'd prefer they take a few steps of the Warhammer world at a time. WE don't need every faction and unit on release.

[DavidtheDuke]

I'm farm from optimistic, specially after Rome 2, and specially considering that leaks seem to point out that TW:Warhammer will be developed using the current engine.

I'm just trying to debunk the myths of some features being "unreallistic to be asked for", and also contributing with my grain of sand in hopes that it might help inspire or give ideas to someone at CA, even if its just the janitor.



By the way, David, the fact that it's perfectly doable (and it's a fact because it's already done) does not mean they can do it with the current engine, with a greedy publisher whiping their backs, or with a total lack of ambition.

It's not fact. You're working off that this isn't CA. You haven't debunked me at all, boats barely work. That is a very bad indication for the AI and the mechanics of flying units in Warscape. I have no faith CA can jigger in flying mechanics into this engine. And Warscape almost certainly is the engine they're going to work with, as you've said yourself. We'll see. I sure as hope it turns out amazing, just I"m not the Teclis of conjuring up hope at this point. :-D Been let down too much .

[Costin_Razvan]

I'd prefer they take a few steps of the Warhammer world at a time. WE don't need every faction and unit on release.

I actually do agree with not needing every faction on release. Which would work well with a smaller narrative driven campaign.

But flying units are a must.

[Theedge634]

I'd prefer they take a few steps of the Warhammer world at a time. WE don't need every faction and unit on release.

I agree, I'd rather they section off a few key features and do them really well... and then add to the game. It's better than getting too ambitious and having a bunch of poorly integrated features. That's why my top list of things to add boiled down to:

- Monstrous Infantry properly integrated
- Underground movement - clarification: doesn't HAVE to be a double map, but at least acknowledge that there are races that are moving underground, whether tunnel systems or just burrowing armies.
- Con-specific economies, traits, and diplomacy

If they could get that done, along with starting out with at least:
High Elves
Dwarves
Bretonnia
The Empire
Orcs
Chaos Horde/Beastmen/Daemons
Skaven

Then with DLC They expand the map and give us the rest of the factions... though I'd prefer all factions on release, and who knows how long they've been working on modeling already!!!

[HigoChumbo]

I think we'd prefer you guys accept reason, and plausibility. Comparing games with grand total of 130-200 models at any one time, many of which are things like tanks and planes (which you don't have to actually give animations) is not a relevant comparison to a battle of 4-10 thousand models, every single one having hundreds of animations.

Watch the Battle for Middle Earth videos posted above and tell me those flying units don't have animations.

Also, we are talking about games designed for 2004's hardware (aka Pentium 4s), we will have hardware 12+ years more advanced when Warhammer comes out.

And I wouldn't care much if they (slightly) lowered a bit the number of models in TW (as far as they made them bigger and more detailed and individual, i explained this in a previous post).

Well, I think Tim Heaton saying, “We’ll be doing the Warhammer universe justice in a way that has never been attempted before. We’re bringing those 25 years of experience and expertise in extremely high-scoring games to bear, delivering a Warhammer experience that videogamers will absolutely love" pretty much negates any thought of it being some minor tablet game or something. I mean it would be pretty ridiculous to make a statement like that and follow it up with Warhammer: Clash of Clans.

I would honestly not take for granted the promises of a company who most recently said something in the lines of "Rome 2 has the most advanced AI ever".

I don't know about that man... I haven't played Rome in a long time, and I'm no CA fanboy... but let's be serious, who's pumping out good games right now?... Bethesda?.... Blizzard has been awful for years, and Company of Heroes 2 was an unmitigated disaster for Relic. Most large gaming companies are inconsistent as hell...

The fact that most of them have turned into dlc-selling, casual-loving, greedy pieces of partially unconsistent brown matter does no take away the fact that big developers have more resources (economic, manpower-wise, technologic, etc) than ever to create outstanding games.

They have noticed casual audiences make for a much bigger portion of the sales and they dumbing down the entire industry to appease them and make games run in the very limited hardware of consoles (hence my hateful signature).

That does not meant they don't have the capabilities to create something reasonably close to what we are asking for.

I don't think gaming companies get away with anything, and to be honest I think its this new generation of gamers that is just incredibly entitled

The non-conformist portion of gamers is a very small minority of the players. Just tell me how many of your "please fix my internet" friends have bought 600 buck Iphones just because they look cool and do fancy whip noises.

I personally think that Divide et Impera for Rome 2, is one of the best games out there right now... along with the HPP mod for Hearts of Iron 3. And before you talk about mods making the game better, I'd argue that that's been true of the gaming industry for over a decade... Myth 2: Soulblighter was one of the top 3-5 pc games all time in my opinion... and the mods that came out for that game gave it a large community for almost a decade.

If you are able to judge the capabilities of amateur modders so highly, I don't know why you can't raise your expectations of what CA can do. After all, they are one of the most resourceful companies out there and they probably have many of the most talented coders in the world fighting each other for a chance of working for them.

It's easy to sit there and expect greatness, but if that's what you want... you should get into coding and work in the industry so you can back it up.

I'm not that masochistic.


I believe we all know perfectly fine the limitations of the game developing process and know what we can expect from CA these days, so I think we should focus the discussion on how we would like the game to evolve rather than on the existing limitations.

Focus on the positive and constructive and let them do what they can (and what they can is actually A LOT MORE of what they delivered with Rome 2, I'm sure of it).

It's not fact. You're working off that this isn't CA. You haven't debunked me at all, boats barely work. That is a very bad indication for the AI and the mechanics of flying units in Warscape. I have no faith CA can jigger in flying mechanics into this engine. And Warscape almost certainly is the engine they're going to work with, as you've said yourself. We'll see. I sure as hope it turns out amazing, just I"m not the Teclis of conjuring up hope at this point. :-D Been let down too much .

Come on... at least read my posts before giving the same arguments again and again...


Long story short: 2014's CA is way more resourceful and capable than 2004's (former) EA Los Angeles. Boats should be quite lower in the chain of priority. Get rid of Warscape.


Also, I'm not trying to debunk you, I'm just trying to debunk pessimistic, defeatist arguments in general.

[Theedge634]

The fact that most of them have turned into dlc-selling, casual-loving, greedy pieces of partially unconsistent brown matter does no take away the fact that big developers have more resources (economic, manpower-wise, technologic, etc) than ever to create outstanding games.

They have noticed casual audiences make for a much bigger portion of the sales and they dumbing down the entire industry to appease them and make games run in the very limited console hardware (hence my hatefull signature).

That does not meant they don't have the capabilities to create what we are asking for

Well I fail to see the huge difference between DLC, and the constant "expansion" packs that games used to get, It's basically the same thing. I think that we like to remember this industry in a certain light because we don't remember all the bad games, or the expansion packs... We just remember stuff like, wow Starcraft, Myth 1 & 2, Warcraft 2, C&C Generals were really good.

The issue with this line of thinking is that it's kind of irrelevant to the franchise we're talking about... It's not like the original TW games had all of this complexity and depth, and they watered it all down. They just haven't progressed in the direction that many strategy heads have hoped. Other than all of the bugs at release, Rome 2 plays pretty much exactly like previous total war installments in depth and pacing.

Thus my statement about Divide et Impera, It's not that the mod is inherently better than the base game... it just plays to my liking more, and is a more accurate historical representation. Now say Divide et Impera was the base game, I'd wager to say that a lot of people would be begging for faster more visceral battles.

You can't cater to the minority as a large company, it's just not good business. If you want high-end companies to pump out technologically top-end highly invested in games for an extremely small section of gamers you're probably wishing for the impossible. The gaming community has changed dramatically since my youth, and whining about it and fighting with it is like being that old guy who can't accept the dissolution of segregation. It's just going to get you know where...

If you're looking for extreme complexity and depth than look to companies like Paradox and Slitherine... or accept that you're in the minority and need the modders to tailor the game in a way that you'll enjoy more. I'm not sure the industry is dumbing down, as much as I believe it has branched out to the casual gamer. There are a litany of wonderful and deep and complex games out there, they just don't get hyped up in PC mag.

Sins of a Solar Empire
Distant Worlds
StarDrive
anything paradox/slitherine
Frozen Synapse (Not super complex, but incredible and interesting)
Both X-Com remakes are nice
Civ 5

[DavidtheDuke]

Come on... at least read my posts before giving the same arguments again and again...


Long story short: 2014's CA is way more resourceful and capable than 2004's (former) EA Los Angeles. Boats should be quite lower in the chain of priority. Get rid of Warscape.


Also, I'm not trying to debunk you, I'm just trying to debunk pessimistic, defeatist arguments in general.

You're not giving me any reason to think they'll get flying units right. Boats should, and necessarily were, a top priority (or should have been) for Rome 2. Rome 2 was the 4 game on Warscape. They stilld on't work right. You can call that a defeatist argument. I still don't see how that gets around 1. It is in Warscape and 2. It is CA, and, after all, they rarely handle new features well, let alone things with alot of complexity and nuance.

I can believe they will probably fail but not want them to, of course I don't want them to fail. But CA is guilty until it proves itself innocent at this point for many of us. On this note, I really think we should push for a early access version of this. That would keep us constructive hopefully as we'd know what we're playing with isn't finished, etc.

[HigoChumbo]

On this note, I really think we should push for a early access version of this. That would keep us constructive hopefully as we'd know what we're playing with isn't finished, etc.

Let's be constructive now when there is a chance that they still might have time to change stuff.

That's why I say we should focus on the constructive arguments, on the ideas and suggestions, and let them choose, deal with the limitations and do what they humanly can.

If you're looking for extreme complexity and depth than look to companies like Paradox and Slitherine... or accept that you're in the minority and need the modders to tailor the game in a way that you'll enjoy more. I'm not sure the industry is dumbing down, as much as I believe it has branched out to the casual gamer. There are a litany of wonderful and deep and complex games out there, they just don't get hyped up in PC mag.

World of Warcraft was a really complex game and has sold 14 million copies. It is the only game in which I have mapped abilities to "Shift+Ctrl+T" and still was played by hordes of casuals.

They key is to make a complex game with a carefully engineered learning curve. To make a game that is appealing to everyone in its own way.

Well I fail to see the huge difference between DLC, and the constant "expansion" packs that games used to get, It's basically the same thing. I think that we like to remember this industry in a certain light because we don't remember all the bad games, or the expansion packs... We just remember stuff like, wow Starcraft, Myth 1 & 2, Warcraft 2, C&C Generals were really good.

I bet there is a lot of people who remember Brood War, Warcraft 2: BNET edition, Age of Empires 2: The Conquerors, Warcraft 3: The Frozen Throne or WoW: The Burning Crusade.


To me, the biggest difference is that some years ago creativity came first, and profitability was a second thought. Now everything is at the service of profit. I don't mind dlcs, in fact, I think they are a great idea. I just don't like how entire games are developed with the main goal of selling as many, low-quality, unfairly priced dlcs as possible.

If you ask me, I prefered the time when games were buggy and developers were dreamy nerds than where we are now, where sales are the only thing that matter (and games are still as buggy as ever, anyways).

You can't cater to the minority as a large company, it's just not good business.

The game we are asking for would make casual audiences drop their jaws, pee their pants and throw their parents' savings at the screen. That's the magic of it and that's why Warhammer is an amazing chance to aim high. Knights mounted on firebreathing dragons dropping from the sky to crush orcs under their claws sell way more games than Mistophoroi Toxotai Kretikoi with historically accurate sandals.

[DavidtheDuke]

Let's be constructive now when there is a chance that they still have time to change stuff.

That's why I say we should focus on the constructive arguments, on the ideas and suggestions, and let them choose, deal with the limitations and do what they humanly can.

I'd bet most of the game is largely laid in stone at this point (in terms of development tracks). The fact that there was already a Warhammer folder in the warscape map dev tool suggest we should all be surprised if we could actually get this stuff added in (if it isn't already added). Besides, I don't want them to add 80 things and only get 2 of them right. The game is probably at least or almost halfway done, early access would probably unfortunately mean mostly refinements than feature additions.

I am willing to pay tons of money for htis, and share your enthusiasm. Unfortunately I don't think we can change much of the development track. Maybe for the expansion though! So you still have a big point, in that way.

[HigoChumbo]

I'd bet most of the game is largely laid in stone at this point (in terms of development tracks). The fact that there was already a Warhammer folder in the warscape map dev tool suggest we should all be surprised if we could actually get this stuff added in (if it isn't already added). Besides, I don't want them to add 80 things and only get 2 of them right. The game is probably at least or almost halfway done, early access would probably unfortunately mean mostly refinements than feature additions.

I am willing to pay tons of money for htis, and share your enthusiasm. Unfortunately I don't think we can change much of the development track. Maybe for the expansion though! So you still have a big point, in that way.

I agree, but we can only hope. Nothing is official yet.

By the way, some companies, like Blizzard, usually cancel big projects (Ghost, Project Titan) and send them back to the drawing board they are not up to the expected quality standards (although even they are losing the good customs).

[Theedge634]

I agree, but we can only hope. Nothing is official yet.

By the way, some companies, like Blizzard, usually cancel big projects (Ghost, Project Titan) and send them back to the drawing board they are not up to the expected quality standards (although even they are losing the good customs).

That's interesting, since Blizzard has been putting out crap for the last 3+ years.. wonder how Diablo 3 made it past the drawing board.

[HigoChumbo]

That's interesting, since Blizzard has been putting out crap for the last 3+ years.. wonder how Diablo 3 made it past the drawing board.

(although even they are losing the good customs)

To me, they are almost dead since after The Burning Crusade. I was a borderline sectarian fanboy before that.

Hearthstone being a notable exception, in any case.