Orcs Campaign Playthrough

[Meraun]

It has not always been 20 units. For the last 3 games since Shogun 2 you could have up to 40 units. Now we're back to 20 units again which I think will greatly nerf greenskin armies against even just semi-elite dwarfs. You can love this game as much as you like, I don't even mind the DLC part of the game, but the unit limit is just killing my expectations for the game.

we always had a 20 units per Army limit... nobody said it will be an 20 units per battlefield limit... it will work like rome II with up to 40 units in 1 battle

[Beregond]

I was! In particular it's all auto resolve so it's more or less campaign map. Which can me be made to look good (which it does so they have done well there)...

I.e all flash and no substance. Well there is an explanation but really what's really amazing here? I mean you have orcs and a leader etc who has magic items and they the orcs have a diff playstyle etc etc. Most of us know this or can guess this but for a complete newcomer it's ok.

It's a start nothing more..

If people are getting excited by this well CA must be laughing and rubbing their hands in glee.

you are being unfair
for TW the difference in gameplay we saw from Orcs campaign is a giant leap forward

[craziii]

I was! In particular it's all auto resolve so it's more or less campaign map. Which can me be made to look good (which it does so they have done well there)...

I.e all flash and no substance. Well there is an explanation but really what's really amazing here? I mean you have orcs and a leader etc who has magic items and they the orcs have a diff playstyle etc etc. Most of us know this or can guess this but for a complete newcomer it's ok.

It's a start nothing more..

If people are getting excited by this well CA must be laughing and rubbing their hands in glee.

title of the video is campaign playthrough. the focus of the video is clearly showing off the campaign map, settlement details, army stack looks in the new game, some of the quests, items, skill trees, building trees.

why would you bring up something totally unrelated to criticize it? wait for the battle videos, hell wait for the twitch playthroughs ca is gonna do in the month before release.

what is wrong with liking what the video showed? all flash no substance? what is substance in your opinion?

[Abdülmecid I]

Meh, no point complaining about unit sizes when nobody knows anything about what options will be available. For all anyone knows the unit sizes are set on low and the ultra is on 500 per unit. As good a guess as anyone else.

We already know, thanks to an interview with a CA employee, that the largest unit number will be 200. A bit disappointing to be honest, even in R1, units could have more than 240 men (unmodded).

[Totalheadache]

you are being unfair
for TW the difference in gameplay we saw from Orcs campaign is a giant leap forward

No I dont think I am being unfair. Yes the units look great on the campaign map and if the rest of the game is like what we see in the vid then am sure some of you will be happy!

Lets just say will reserve judgement till have seen more.

P.s I dont think it will be very good simply because there's no new engine nor any great steps to optimise it, however I stand to be corrected. I'd be surprised if am wrong though as I am very very rarely wrong. (haha that sounded arrogant but nearly 40 yrs of life tells me this is the case

It is a different style though so perhaps things will be different I just cant see it.

Oh and this has happened with every other release CA makes...hype...etc then not so great...(or issues etc).

[Ganossa]

Amount of 20 units should be no problem. A limited deck makes you think and act strategic.
If you want bigger battles I would rather suggest to increase the entities in a unit (so increase the maximum unit size) instead of extending a deck.

[JFC]

Is it me, of does that Campaign Map actually look quite small? You compare that to the usual Maps of Europe we've had... Also, perturbed by the mention of DLC to make the map larger...

All I'll say, Remember R2TW and what happened there.

[Påsan]

Is it me, of does that Campaign Map actually look quite small? You compare that to the usual Maps of Europe we've had... Also, perturbed by the mention of DLC to make the map larger...

All I'll say, Remember R2TW and what happened there.

Id does look small. But it also look extremely varied with every corner offering a new environment. Also unique settlements seems like its going to be a thing.

[Aquila_Mars]

To be fair, what they showed in the map was only a small part of the empire and they practically didn't touch the badlands. Also Bretonnia is much larger than that, not even counting Athel Loren. They showed Norsca but it goes Beyond that to the chaos wastes which they didn't show.

Example, they only showed the Forest of Arden/Duchy of Bastonne and Couronne in Bretonnia. Much more to Bretonnia than that.

They went in through Blackfire Pass into the Empire through Averland and proceeded to Reikland. There is much more to the Empire than that.

Places like Estalia and Tilea were untouched.

The map is much bigger than what they've shown I'm sure. (and even what they've shown is pretty good given the variety of landscapes.)

[Modestus]

Campaign map is basically a large model is it not? Having it look like the Warhammer world is what you would expect, all praise to CA for not making it look like Italy.

Movement I presume typical of the Warscape games is mainly restricted to narrow corridors in mountain passes and between impassable forests resulting in battles that will generally take place on a nice flat open piece of dirt or perhaps CA put more effort into this?

Be interesting to know if there is a continuous underlying tactical map I presume there is.

Its good that provinces will change their appearance depending on who owns them of course if this is reflected on the battlefield is another thing, you could imagine a Dwarf- Hold looking Orchish not so much a human city.

Its looks like the game could be fun but unfortunately I cannot ignore the fact that its made using Warcrap and it has that smell about it.

[johnny_b_good]

Looking good but is that whole map? Cuz I want to see more differences like swamps, large forests, deserts, grasslands etc.

[Beregond]

well, forests, deserts and grasslands were shown

[Red Dox]

Looking good but is that whole map? Cuz I want to see more differences like swamps, large forests, deserts, grasslands etc.

Marshes of madness in the badlands
http://fs5.directupload.net/images/151204/o5ktb3u2.jpg
http://fs5.directupload.net/images/151204/5kp5owks.png

or the forests (like Drakenwald) and grasslands in Empire or Bretonia
http://fs5.directupload.net/images/151204/xyowlbjy.png
http://fs5.directupload.net/images/151204/o2nhlw7w.png
http://fs5.directupload.net/images/151204/axgj6l2m.png
http://fs5.directupload.net/images/151204/2u6aps9c.png
http://fs5.directupload.net/images/151204/v38q3f5n.png


Yeah, there is not much desert yet.
http://fs5.directupload.net/images/151204/kxv6ipa8.png
Probably because we go only to the badlands and not the next step, over to Nehekhara.
http://whfb.lexicanum.com/mediawiki/...ra_%282%29.jpg
or over the worlds edge mountain into the dark lands
http://nexusx.wanadooadsl.net/ayudas..._World_Map.jpg

But hey, it is just the first map. There will be two expansions coming that add more territory. So, you are looking for something more like this?
http://oi57.tinypic.com/4r3tb8.jpg
Come back in 2019 after the two expansions are out

-----Red Dox

[HigoChumbo]

you are being unfair
for TW the difference in gameplay we saw from Orcs campaign is a giant leap forward

I honestly fail to see that "giant" leap forward. To me it looks really, really similar to Rome 2/Attila both visually and gameplay-wise. (note that with visually I don't mean with the artistic design, I think they did a fairly good job there, but graphically, just check the initial non-cinematic view and tell me it does not look exactly like the previous games: )




Other than that, I see exactly the same building/management system, I see army stances, I see horde mechanics... nothing particularly new other than the winds of magic and Vampire's corruption, and having played Attila yet, it might as well be yet another recycled system I'm not aware of. Really, I see nothing which does not make me think "it's just Attila with orcs and magic". There are obviously some changes... but more like small tweaks rather than "giant leaps forward".



The best news for me are the tech trees, which were terribly simple and boring in the previous games and seem to be in better shape this time around.



On a side note, I forgot to paste this image in my last comment:

[Person012345]

Meh, no point complaining about unit sizes when nobody knows anything about what options will be available. For all anyone knows the unit sizes are set on low and the ultra is on 500 per unit. As good a guess as anyone else.

It's really not "as good a guess". just because you don't know something for certain doesn't mean we have no indication at all. For a start, it makes logical marketing sense to pick your most impressive options when showing off the game, they certainly aren't doing their campaign map zoom throughs and demo battles on lowest graphics. Additionally, if we look at previous games, their unit sizes and the REASONS for those unit sizes it tends to indicate that max size units won't be 500 men. Of course we don't know how big they are yet, but the best guess certainly isn't 500 men per unit.

I'm not complaining though because as you said, we don't really know. I'm just saying, if the early indications are anything to go by, I won't be happy when it does get revealed. That being said, maybe they aren't. There's still many months till release, we know the "20 units per side per battle" is under consideration so we really don't know with any degree of accuracy what the unit sizes will be.

we always had a 20 units per Army limit... nobody said it will be an 20 units per battlefield limit... it will work like rome II with up to 40 units in 1 battle

Why would you say something like this. I can't tell if it's crazed fanboyism that won't let you accept the truth or whether you're just assuming because going back to 20 units would be ridiculous. If the latter, then please don't state it so matter of factly.

CA have stated that in this game you will only be able to have 20 units on the battlefield at one time under your control. Any reinforcements will trickle in unit by unit as units die or flee. However, they have also stated that this is under reconsideration because people have been complaining about it. But unless there's been some big news I have missed very recently, the plan is to have 20 vs 20 battles. And it was certainly "said".

you are being unfair
for TW the difference in gameplay we saw from Orcs campaign is a giant leap forward

Sorry, what was so revolutionary about it? They added a bar that when it gets full you get another army. And the only negative is you have to put the army in raiding stance when you aren't using it which encourages a xmore aggressive gameplay style. #I'm not seeing the giant leap forward here.

[Col. Tartleton]

Not in love with the Waaagh mechanic. I'd rather have it be that you get additional units beyond 20 up to 40 unit doom stacks if your generals have won multiple battles in a row.

So at 0 wins you can have 15 units. At 1 win you get 20 units. At 2 wins you get 25 units. At 3 wins you get 30 units. At 4 wins you get 35 units. At 5 wins you get 40 units. If you take a loss you're down a peg to 35 units, etc.

The whole second free stack thing just seems like a pain because its AI. Just give us "Waaagh" mercenaries for reduced recruitment costs like Crusade troops in M2. Orcs are about snowballing. Then have an animosity counter that ramps up based on your stack level which basically throws assassinations at your leader periodically and "desertion" from infighting.

A huge stack of orcs under a mighty warlord will be very hard to fight against, but will be constantly fighting itself.

[Person012345]

Am I the only one that hates that raiding stance gets rid of animosity? That makes no sense and it seems to largely defeat the point.

[|Sith|Galvanized Iron]

As I posted on official forums I do not think the Orkz feel unique enough. I would suggest some improvements in various fields:

Buildings
Building infrastructure for recruitment is a bit silly, it would make more sense if the Orkz simply kept building random ornaments and Waaagh! banners in their settlements and then the Orkz collective power of belief made that unlock more badass units.

Economy:
I don't think Orkz should have a money based economy. Instead their recruitment, upkeep and construction should be "free". It did work for the Necron faction in Dawn of War: Dark Crusade after all. Free recruitment/construction slots and times should be based on how enthusiastic the Orkz are feeling. Basically we have already seen they have global recruitment pools, so why not also make their recruitment and constructions slots being shared globally?

Slots and times could all be based on a factional Waaaagh! metre that speeds things up and adds more slots the higher it goes. The metre should of course be decreasing quite rapidly so in order to keep up your momentum you would need to have a high tempo. So this means playing Orkz would be more about time management than financial economy. There could be some wealth collecting, but it should mainly just be pocket money that you could spend on hiring some mercenaries or "diplomatic"/agent actions, but mainly for buying some bling-bling for your heroes.

Tech-tree:
Orkz shouldn't have a traditional tech-tree. Basicly I would do away with the whole methodically working your way through the tech-tree by clicking on techs one by one and then waiting for them to be researched. That is simply not very original at all.

Ork tech shouldn't be researched, there should be a tech-tree, but it should be more like a shopping list (or chopping list). Basicly it would work like the quest system. If you want a new tech you perform a certain task to get it, which usually would involve some kind of looting. So it would be like looting, but persistent looting. Can just re-name the tech-tree: "Grimgor's Wishlist Dis Yeers Waaaagh!" (Ork Christmas).

For example:

• Want to unlock the "Bigga Pauldrons"-tech (armor upgrade)? Go chop some Chaos boyz (because regular humans and dwarves are too runty to have Ork size armor).
• Want to unlock doom divers? You go out and conquer a particularly crazy Goblin tribe.
• Want giant spiders? Go and capture a pack of feral spiders.
• Want some turrets on those spiders? You go smash up a steam tank.
• Want fancy walls? Send a Brainboy on "sightseeing" to some Dwarven Karaks.

Since it is not a tech-tree per se, I don't think these things necessary should have to be unlocked in chronological order.

[DavidtheDuke]

I agree with those who don't think it's a giant leap forward. I don't think so either. The dwarf underway mechanic seems like a lazy workaround too. If/when CA implements skaven, it's going to be weird if you can't attack dwarf karaks underground. That's not how skaven attack dwarf holds. Maybe there will be a highway-like underway implemented at some point as a underground network, but I'm beginning to doubt they'll go this far, and just use that mechanic instead.

That said, if it's less buggy than CoW and implements flying units and magic better, I'd rather they play the safe route since I'm not too sure CA could even pull off highly ambitious mechanics anyway. It could just be permanently broken things they never get right.

[|Sith|Galvanized Iron]

I agree with those who don't think it's a giant leap forward. I don't think so either. The dwarf underway mechanic seems like a lazy workaround too. If/when CA implements skaven, it's going to be weird if you can't attack dwarf karaks underground. That's not how skaven attack dwarf holds. Maybe there will be a highway-like underway implemented at some point as a underground network, but I'm beginning to doubt they'll go this far, and just use that mechanic instead.

That said, if it's less buggy than CoW and implements flying units and magic better, I'd rather they play the safe route since I'm not too sure CA could even pull off highly ambitious mechanics anyway. It could just be permanently broken things they never get right.

Well I don't know, I feel one of CA's main problems is actually lack of ambition. It is becoming a bit like a FIFA or Call of Duty, each year gets it's own Total War with some incremental changes. I mean the re-use of Attila mechanics pretty much proves that. Personally I could live with some bugs if CA actually made an effort to impress me, that's for example why I actually rate ETW higher than NTW, despite the fact that NTW was a lot more functional (because they had lowered the bar simply). Let's not forget that the whole reason TW actually took off was because when STW1 was released it was something completely new and never before seen. I think we all know that the real solution would be to double the development times and stop releasing games yearly, if they just did that they can spam as much DLC as they like for all I care, I haven't bought any since Hannibal at the Gates anyhow.

Still we know that is not going to happend so then I think CA should just go crazy and create some whacky stuff. I mean some radical Ork mechanics might not be fully balanced on the campaign map, but who cares? The campaign map is a singleplayer exprience anyhow and the factions have never been perfectly balanced regardless. I think they should probably take a more conservative approach on the battle map in order to not kill off all the MP potentional (it is Warhammer so we have to be able to send our creations against other players), but as it is now they got the wrong priorities: they introduce quite whacky and hard to balance stuff to battle map whilst the campaign map basicly looks like same old.