Full game or split game?

[PointOfViewGun]

And you haven't bought any unit packs. I'm guessing you bought the campaign DLC... which added features/mechanics as well as content? You're telling me your DLC preference is to not add features, yet you yourself said you haven't bought a unit pack? Maybe there was a non-campaign DLC you bought that wasn't a unit pack (what would that be?)? Or do you just like the content in the campaign DLCs? Would you really not have paid for a family tree feature to be added to Rome 2?

What features do culture or campaign DLCs add to the main game? They always add content.

I wouldn't pay for a family tree DLC even if they proposed it.

[DavidtheDuke]

What features do culture or campaign DLCs add to the main game? They always add content.

I wouldn't pay for a family tree DLC even if they proposed it.

The campaign can add new maps for mods, which is a side/unintended feature, but more importantly for example, the Last Roman has added a new mechanic where you can instantly give captured cities back to a host nation that is supporting you. Wrath of Sparta jiggered "tribalism" into the campaign which acted different than Rome 2 vanilla culture. Caesar in Gaul changed how technology works by adding in tech you can literally just buy. HatG changed alot of how tech works as well if I remember correctly, adding diplomacy tech etc (kind like CiG). All of these things proibably messed with the the hardcore a bit, adding features mods can in the future take advantage of (sometimes, anyway).

I and many others would pay for a family tree DLC (by itself). I'd say CA should experiment with adding things like this to see how well they sell. Put them in a campaign pack if they have to. Would you have bought the campaign packs if they came with a family tree on top of them? Or would, um, adding new features dissuade you? Do you not like the family tree that much?

[PointOfViewGun]

The campaign can add new maps for mods, which is a side/unintended feature, but more importantly for example, the Last Roman has added a new mechanic where you can instantly give captured cities back to a host nation that is supporting you. Wrath of Sparta jiggered "tribalism" into the campaign which acted different than Rome 2 vanilla culture. Caesar in Gaul changed how technology works by adding in tech you can literally just buy. HatG changed alot of how tech works as well if I remember correctly, adding diplomacy tech etc (kind like CiG). All of these things proibably messed with the the hardcore a bit, adding features mods can in the future take advantage of (sometimes, anyway).

I and many others would pay for a family tree DLC (by itself). I'd say CA should experiment with adding things like this to see how well they sell. Put them in a campaign pack if they have to. Would you have bought the campaign packs if they came with a family tree on top of them? Or would, um, adding new features dissuade you? Do you not like the family tree that much?

Maps are content, not feature. WoS's cultures are also content, not feature. CiG's tech tree is also content, not feature. The idea of buying some tech with money instead of time is not a strong case for a feature. HatG's new techs are also content, not feature. Perhaps the strongest case you have is with the Last Roman. None of these, however, add any of these to the main game.

Having a family tree as part of a campaign pack plays no role on whether I'd buy it or not. I would consider the setting of the campaign. I wouldn't mind a family tree for a campaign that has at least 4 turns per year but anything less than that would make it a nuisance.

[DavidtheDuke]

Maps are content, not feature. WoS's cultures are also content, not feature. CiG's tech tree is also content, not feature. The idea of buying some tech with money instead of time is not a strong case for a feature. HatG's new techs are also content, not feature. Perhaps the strongest case you have is with the Last Roman. None of these, however, add any of these to the main game.

Having a family tree as part of a campaign pack plays no role on whether I'd buy it or not. I would consider the setting of the campaign. I wouldn't mind a family tree for a campaign that has at least 4 turns per year but anything less than that would make it a nuisance.

Most of the campaign features are important to me mostly for mods to add to the main campaign. Being able to buy tech could be a big deal for mods and how their own tech trees work, I think it's bigger there. Even the culture mechancis being adjusted may have changed a key part that mods can exploit (I'm not sure about that one, yes). I know that's not important for you, but the reason I'd love a family tree DLC is that it could be added to Rome 2, along with Rome 2's turn time mods, making it 4-6-8 turns per year so generals etc could have a point. That's why many wanted these things, and why even if DLC was explicitly only features that'd be fine because it's more stuff for talented modders to play with.

[Abdülmecid I]

I and many others would pay for a family tree DLC (by itself). I'd say CA should experiment with adding things like this to see how well they sell. Put them in a campaign pack if they have to. Would you have bought the campaign packs if they came with a family tree on top of them? Or would, um, adding new features dissuade you? Do you not like the family tree that much?

I'm a FT fanboy, spending most of the time of my campaigns studying the relationships between my family members, but I'd never buy such a DLC. A financially successful FT DLC will prove to CA, not simply the popularity of the family tree, but also how desperate their customers are. They don't mind that the feature wasn't included, as long as they have the option to pay extra to add it into their game. If that was the case, I'd be surprised if a family tree is ever added in the original game, from the start. Why adding it, when you can implement it several months later, in parallel with a significant increase of your profits? Of course, the same applies for any other "feature-DLC".

[DavidtheDuke]

I'm a FT fanboy, spending most of the time of my campaigns studying the relationships between my family members, but I'd never buy such a DLC. A financially successful FT DLC will prove to CA, not simply the popularity of the family tree, but also how desperate their customers are. They don't mind that the feature wasn't included, as long as they have the option to pay extra to add it into their game. If that was the case, I'd be surprised if a family tree is ever added in the original game, from the start. Why adding it, when you can implement it several months later, in parallel with a significant increase of your profits? Of course, the same applies for any other "feature-DLC".

Sure, we're desperate. We couldn't even get them to fully remove torches. They just put in "gate hacking" which is basically just the same animations used in Attila to bash barricades.

I'm willing to pay for this stuff because it's the closest long shot I even see, frankly. Mods can only do so much, though I'm amazed at what they've been able to do.

[Vardeus]

I liked the spirit behind torches...being able to do something desperate and get slaughtered in the process. They were overpowered at the beginning, though.

Auto-spawning tiny rams (similar to the ladders) with no cover against oil and projectiles would've gone a long way in securing some measure of immersion i must add. How long does it take for a big army to cut a few trees?

[DavidtheDuke]

I liked the spirit behind torches...being able to do something desperate and get slaughtered in the process. They were overpowered at the beginning, though.

Auto-spawning tiny rams (similar to the ladders) with no cover against oil and projectiles would've gone a long way in securing some measure of immersion i must add. How long does it take for a big army to cut a few trees?

I wish onagers were only buildable during sieges. Find it annoying the actually are useful as artiller killing machines on an ancient battlefield.

[Imperator Artorius]

In the ideal world the AI and the player would be forced to retreat if they lost all of their siege equipment before enabling a way into whatever it is they are besieging, and would be unable to attack in the first place if they had no siege equipment to begin with. Providing the AI didnt bug out, it worked just fine in Medieval 2. Except as an AI aid, I don't think there is much in favour of a last ditch method other than as a way to allow players who were unable to protect their equipment to still win the battle.

[MissRarity]

I wish onagers were only buildable during sieges. Find it annoying the actually are useful as artiller killing machines on an ancient battlefield.

I remmber this moment in ''Fall of the Sammurai'' where one whole squad of my British marines where wiped out of one of my cannons miss-fire in to them.

And that is cannons, how more inaccurate is a catapult going to be?

[DavidtheDuke]

Since I can't think of any ancient battle where catapults/onagers were even close to a battlefield factor, I'm going to guess even if they were very effective against mobile targets, could use exploding ammo, or were numerous enough to even matter, they basically weren't. It's probably not a coincidence that until cannons, artillery wasn't even at word used to describe this regiment of the army. I'm not an expert on the matter though. Just irks me one of my army slots has to be occupied by something I hhave to super babysit and/or snipe on the battlefield. I'd just rather it be buildable in sieges.

This is getting off topic, though, I guess.

[Tyso3]

Has setkeh left this thread now? Can we return to discussing the point of the thread?

[The Wandering Storyteller]

Has setkeh left this thread now? Can we return to discussing the point of the thread?

I have no doubt that Warhammer will be a great game, but it will be DLC. There's already planned DLC and I just don't like the focus on four factions( search Zaskar's mods on steam, and Little Legionnaire) and those four factions rosters will not be great, and they're planning to make some sort of fantasy fest stuff. Here's the game, sell a few 'unique units' that weren't completed, and sell some new factions. Its just the same old stuff. Nothing new, besides, wait for the gold edition. Let's not forget that this isn't Rome 2's DLC stuff, only one needs to look at the NTW DLC stuff, some units just didn't appear on release for the Imperial Edition.

I mean I love Rome 2, I just only wish they would add in campaign features - that is what would make Rome 2 the game it was and should be. I mean what was the point of showing the Senate in the Hannibal trailer when it was the most important structure for Rome's history and it didn't even appear in Rome 2? Where are those historical characters we would use to have influence with?

Anyway, NTW and ETW are the starting points of where DLC got going bad. I mean search a NTW mod, for Napoleon Total Combat and Napoleonic Total war III and Masters of Europe, and you will find historically excellent reskins of hundreds of units that CA didn't even bother to add in NTW's making. So this is not Rome 2, Rome 2 just added factions and units, and buildings, new tech. Instead they could have made it better by adding in new features such as a political demise, more unique dilemas and events, more cinematic intros and cinematic videos, more role playing elements of the Anicent World. How I wish TED was released for Rome 2, not for Attila.

If I played Pergamon, I should have had stories tell me about the faction, what makes it unique, you know like MTW 2, where you had events telling you what was happening and what you had to do, Rome 2 suffered I think because of the streamlining and rushed making.

I mean real campaign DLC like the Peninsular Campaign added new agents, new religion, a premise to the setting, great soundtrack, and utilized much of the standard NTW uniforms. The MTW 2 Kingdoms expansion worked because each had a different setting and it felt very much like you were playing there. If there are to be three more titles, than I'm not too happy, what's the point of making this one when you have three more in the works?

In my opinion, Warhammer is going to be a split game, albeit if they manage to add a lot of content that is worth playing, and the four factions are unique, then great. If not, this game will be like Rome 2's release. All I can say is I'm worried when they announce big epic games, ETW failed at launch, but its still playable, RTW 2 turned out to be not the game on release, and its improved, but the lack of modding tools for RTW 2 is astounding. RTW was the eternal beginning of most mods that would highlight the total war series. So much for 'the most moddable game to date' for Rome 2.

One needs to look at the Shogun 2 Sun Rising Mod where Ming China has been added (which has not been seen since the days of MTW 2 modding). They could have at least released the full alpha siege of Carthage for us fans as a treat or something like that. CA did release new battle maps for Shogun 2, and since then they've not been very generous to us except a few bits and pieces. Could they not release new battle maps for Rome 2 and add in the alpha siege of carthage? Back in 2011, it was a different company. Today, it is not the great studio it used to be.


Warhammer is liable to this. So CA are great at making more focused games, but with big games, they need more time. I just want more campaign features. Unit packs.....is really not what most TW players need anyway, I could find a mod and easily play with that. The community didn't ask for units. We want campaign packs like the Last Roman(and please use MTW 2 examples of Kingdom expansions), and I don't want to buy '1' campaign packs. I want 5 or 10 in one pack.

But who knows? But please remember, this started under ETW, and intensified under NTW, and then went onto Shogun 2 where they just added new clans and factions(@but were really good DLCs as the units were unique and they felt well designed) Although each clan should have got more unique historical units. So Warhammer will be a split game unless...they do not forget to add enough content to make the game worth playing.

[DavidtheDuke]

I have no doubt that Warhammer will be a great game, but it will be DLC. There's already planned DLC and I just don't like the focus on four factions(because search Zaskar's mods on steam, and Little Legionnaire), and they're planning to make some sort of fantasy fest stuff. Here's the game, sell a few 'unique units' that weren't completed, and sell some new factions. Its just the same old stuff. Nothing new, besides, wait for the gold edition. Let's not forget that this isn't Rome 2, only one needs to look at the NTW DLC stuff, some units just didn't appear on release for the Imperial Edition. I mean I love Rome 2, I just only wish they would add in campaign features - that is what would make Rome 2 the game it was and should be. I mean what was the point of showing the Senate in the Hannibal trailer when it was the most important structure for Rome? Anyway, NTW and ETW are the starting points of where DLC got going bad. I mean search a NTW mod, for Napoleon Total Combat and Napoleonic Total war III and Masters of Europe, and you will find historically excellent reskins of hundreds of units that CA didn't even bother to add in NTW's making. So this is not Rome 2, Rome 2 just added factions and units, and buildings, new tech. Instead they could have made it better by adding in new features such as a political demise, more unique dilemas and events, more cinematic intros and cinematic videos, more role playing elements of the Anicent World. If I played Pergamon, I should have had stories tell me about the faction, what makes it unique, you know like MTW 2, where you had events telling you what was happening and what you had to do, Rome 2 suffered I think because of the streamlining.

I mean real campaign DLC like the Peninsular Campaign added new agents, new religion, a premise to the setting, great soundtrack, and utilized much of the standard NTW uniforms. The MTW 2 Kingdoms expansion worked because each had a different setting and it felt very much like you were playing there. If there are to be three more titles, than I'm not too happy, what's the point of making this one when you have three more in the works?

In my opinion, Warhammer is going to be a split game, albiet if they manage to add a lot of content that is worth playing, and the four factions are unique, then great. If not, this game will be like Rome 2's release. All I can say is I'm worried when they announce big epic games, ETW failed at launch, but its still playable, RTW 2 turned out to be not the game on release, and its improved, but the lack of modding tools for RTW 2 is astounding. RTW was the eternal beginning of most mods that would highlight the total war series. So much for 'the most moddable game to date'. One needs to look at the Shogun 2 Sun Rising Mod where Ming China has been added (which has not been seen since the days of MTW 2 modding). They could have at least released the full alpha siege of Carthage for us fans as a treat or something like that. Warhammer is liable to this. So CA are great at making more focused games, but with big games, they need more time. I just want more campaign features. Unit packs.....is really not what most TW players need anyway.

But who knows? But please remember, this started under ETW, and intensified under NTW, and then went onto Shogun 2 where they just added new clans and factions(@but were really good DLCs as the units were unique and they felt well designed) Although each clan should have got more unique historical units. So Warhammer will be a split game unless...they do not forget to add enough content to make the game worth playing.

The game is going to be 3 different 'games' where if you buy all three you get a massive map. Pretty sure that implies it's going to be under one .exe suite, unlike how Attila was separated from Rome 2, wehrein we couldn't import the family tree feature for mods.

I think 2 expansions for Warhammer are the best news about the announcement really: That means massive, long term support where the really bad problems are largely ironed out in the first game, and fixed more and more in the 2 sequels.

[The Wandering Storyteller]

The game is going to be 3 different 'games' where if you buy all three you get a massive map. Pretty sure that implies it's going to be under one .exe suite, unlike how Attila was separated from Rome 2, wehrein we couldn't import the family tree feature for mods.

I think 2 expansions for Warhammer are the best news about the announcement really: That means massive, long term support where the really bad problems are largely ironed out in the first game, and fixed more and more in the 2 sequels.

So one game that adds a fraction of the map and the other two add in more?

Not to my liking, but this is more akin to MTW 2 which added more new maps anyway with the expansion pack.

The first game should not be a disaster because CA is capable of making excellent games. There is no need for them to do so. They have the deadline, they can be more efficient and utilize the resources to make it a great game. And they are the ONLY ones making these types of games. If this quality of releasing bad games(although Attila had an excellent release), continues, it should serve as a lesson more or less to not rush things. Work hard, polish and make it perfect. That should be their mantra. Not money first and then game development later.

I do not want a Rome 2 fiasco over again in my opinion.

[DavidtheDuke]

I do not want a Rome 2 fiasco over again in my opinion.

This is more ambitious than Rome 2 and perhaps even Empire. Do you really think everything is going to work well out of the gate? It might, but I'm going to err on the side of the past. Besides, I'm convinced at this point CA only gets their games right after community input. Even if they had another year with Rome 2 they probably would've had battlefield capture points still in for some reason.

I'm banking on Warhammer 1 being kinda bad at least in the buggy department, with the next to expansions which expand the actual campaign map ironing out all the things the community is most obviously vocal about and wants fixed. That seems to be the best, most realistic thing we can expect IMO.

[korsakoff]

This is more ambitious than Rome 2 and perhaps even Empire. Do you really think everything is going to work well out of the gate? It might, but I'm going to err on the side of the past. Besides, I'm convinced at this point CA only gets their games right after community input. Even if they had another year with Rome 2 they probably would've had battlefield capture points still in for some reason.

I'm banking on Warhammer 1 being kinda bad at least in the buggy department, with the next to expansions which expand the actual campaign map ironing out all the things the community is most obviously vocal about and wants fixed. That seems to be the best, most realistic thing we can expect IMO.

People need to understand that CA can't have another flop like Rome 2, it was a huge disaster on launch and a waking point for anyone who purchased it on launch and for CA and Sega as well. People are a lot more careful now and it's clear with the reception Attila has had on steam. The game has been in development for a rather long time now since they announced they had the Warhammer license back in 2012, i do not think this game will be as buggy as Rome 2 and CA can't afford it to be either. Besides the game doesn't come out til next year so plenty of time, we will see when the game play video comes out today. Although everyone should beware that the video does not contain AI it's all scripted.

[Greve Af Göteborg]

People need to understand that CA can't have another flop like Rome 2, it was a huge disaster on launch and a waking point for anyone who purchased it on launch and for CA and Sega as well. People are a lot more careful now and it's clear with the reception Attila has had on steam. The game has been in development for a rather long time now since they announced they had the Warhammer license back in 2012, i do not think this game will be as buggy as Rome 2 and CA can't afford it to be either. Besides the game doesn't come out til next year so plenty of time, we will see when the game play video comes out today. Although everyone should beware that the video does not contain AI it's all scripted.

And now that the steam users are able to refund games, a flop would be even more painful for CA/SEGA. Just look at the mass refunds of the new batman game, it even forced the publisher to pull the game off the steam store.

[Wittman]

WTF?You have to buy dlc to unlock the full map?
And i thought they couldnt sink lower with their dlc policy...

[DavidtheDuke]

WTF?You have to buy dlc to unlock the full map?
And i thought they couldnt sink lower with their dlc policy...

The full map is probably going to include most if not all of the major races of the entire Warhammer world. Honestly as different, varied, and massive a project like this is the costs are easily justified, especially compared to buy WHFB figurines. You don't *have* to buy it, once again, anyway.

People need to understand that CA can't have another flop like Rome 2, it was a huge disaster on launch and a waking point for anyone who purchased it on launch and for CA and Sega as well. People are a lot more careful now and it's clear with the reception Attila has had on steam. The game has been in development for a rather long time now since they announced they had the Warhammer license back in 2012, i do not think this game will be as buggy as Rome 2 and CA can't afford it to be either. Besides the game doesn't come out til next year so plenty of time, we will see when the game play video comes out today. Although everyone should beware that the video does not contain AI it's all scripted.

That is possible and maybe it'll be more like a Shogun 2 launch or something (I wasn't around for that, but people didn't scream and wail about it so I guess it was a bit better). Like Greve said, the refund ability we now how will let us get the preorder bonus without exposing ourselves to undue risk. I'm giong to preorder, but not play past the 2 hour limit and wait for more indepth reviews (even if the first 2 hours is pretty cool).