Orcs Campaign Playthrough

[Markas]

I hate to be that guy, but I am that guy: Person012345 is actually right completely right here, it would go against the very nature of an Ork Waaaaaaaaaagh! (unsure about the correct number of "a"s according to strict Orkish grammar rules) to stop for breathers.

The Goblins were not on a WAAAAGH when the raid feature was used. If you stop for breathers and you are, it contributes to it's end, as said in the video. It makes perfect sense for greenskins to do that.

[Cathal]

Whatever. There is no reason why I should be forced to fight every few turns. It would get dull. Oh look, my army will desert or turn against me (rebel) in 2 turns if I don't fight! But my army is 3 turns away from the nearest enemy, oh no! Dear lord, this is where game play is better than lore, let me sit my army here for 5 turns so they don't rebel. But like Markas said, that wasn't a WAAAAGH, it was just an army. I can see not letting the WAAAAGH have a breather, but everything else is fine.

[craziii]

The only solution I can see to this is making raiding stance a stop-gap to animosity, but you still will lose your entire army unless you actually go fight something.

any game design in forcing players to do something is always bad, really bad. I don't dislike what ca has done at all.

@ dumb criticisms. campaign map is blah, let me show a picture where 70% of it is empty ocean and the other 30% is almost empty land, unimpressive!!! yeah!!! /s

[DavidtheDuke]

any game design in forcing players to do something is always bad, really bad. I don't dislike what ca has done at all.

@ dumb criticisms. campaign map is blah, let me show a picture where 70% of it is empty ocean and the other 30% is almost empty land, unimpressive!!! yeah!!! /s

It's not like you could raid with no repurcussions, it could cause orc rebellions in your own provice, and it's not like the Empire should just let you raid indefinitely either. It doesn't absolutely force you right now, and modders can make the animosity more punishing if they like.

[craziii]

It's not like you could raid with no repurcussions, it could cause orc rebellions in your own provice, and it's not like the Empire should just let you raid indefinitely either. It doesn't absolutely force you right now, and modders can make the animosity more punishing if they like.

could orc rebellions be a thing? they are already constantly fighting and killing each other. they follow the warboss pretty much mindlessly until defeat. ca reasoning is that if they are out raiding, it more than satisfies the need to fight. I don't dislike it at all.

[DavidtheDuke]

could orc rebellions be a thing? they are already constantly fighting and killing each other. they follow the warboss pretty much mindlessly until defeat. ca reasoning is that if they are out raiding, it more than satisfies the need to fight. I don't dislike it at all.

well if you set up a raiding party in your own orc territory I can easily see that pissing off the orcs and making them want to fight you. It's not the same dynamic if, hah, Karl Franz started raiding Altdorf, but for different reasons the populace would rise up eventually to defend itself.

[MrOuija]

Whatever. There is no reason why I should be forced to fight every few turns. It would get dull. Oh look, my army will desert or turn against me (rebel) in 2 turns if I don't fight! But my army is 3 turns away from the nearest enemy, oh no! Dear lord, this is where game play is better than lore, let me sit my army here for 5 turns so they don't rebel. But like Markas said, that wasn't a WAAAAGH, it was just an army. I can see not letting the WAAAAGH have a breather, but everything else is fine.

Then just move toward your enemy and at the end of your turn go into the raiding stance, there won't be any rebellion. It's just like Attila's move 75%, camp, move 75%, camp, deal.

[Person012345]

I will post my idea on how I might have liked to see it work tomorrow (I'm too tired to state the whole thing coherently right now).

Whatever. There is no reason why I should be forced to fight every few turns. It would get dull. Oh look, my army will desert or turn against me (rebel) in 2 turns if I don't fight! But my army is 3 turns away from the nearest enemy, oh no! Dear lord, this is where game play is better than lore, let me sit my army here for 5 turns so they don't rebel. But like Markas said, that wasn't a WAAAAGH, it was just an army. I can see not letting the WAAAAGH have a breather, but everything else is fine.

Uh, yes there is. Namely: You're playing orcs. If you don't like constant fighting then maybe orcs aren't the faction for you since that's kind of their thing. :/

[Sun Jetzu]

The campaign map is similiar to Attila's at least in the UI. But I do think that the campaign map has alot more detail than any other total war map to date.

[HigoChumbo]

Which is conflicting with your theory that the map will not expand much. So for better understanding, what would be your strategy for the missing armybooks and their appearence?

I didn't say that they won't expand them map, I said that I would not be surprised if the whole thing ended up being a lot smaller, so to speak, than some people are expecting it to be.


My strategy? Well, my guesses for the two first games are Old World centric, so there is really no need to expand a lot. Expanding features would be more important than adding terrain. For the third game, it would mostly be a matter of accomodating high and dark elves.

but if you think "Elves first, because popular and different", you need Ulthuan and at least parts of the new world.

My guess is actually elves for the third game, with the exception of Wood Elves. It would be weird to have three Warhammer games in which elves are only playable in the last one. I don't know how they will adapt Wood Elves' gameplay to make them interesting, but the second game strikes me as a good time to release them.

[DavidtheDuke]

I didn't say that they won't expand them map, I said that I would not be surprised if the whole thing ended up being a lot smaller, so to speak, than some people are expecting it to be.


My strategy? Well, my guesses for the two first games are Old World centric, so there is really no need to expand a lot. Expanding features would be more important than adding terrain. For the third game, it would mostly be a matter of accomodating high and dark elves.



My guess is actually elves for the third game, with the exception of Wood Elves. It would be weird to have three Warhammer games in which elves are only playable in the last one. I don't know how they will adapt Wood Elves' gameplay to make them interesting, but the second game strikes me as a good time to release them.

If CA really meant they intend to include all the major races, lizardmen are coming at some point, so that means Lustria. Unless they do an expedition etc, like CoW did (but not with lizardmen).

[craziii]

Then just move toward your enemy and at the end of your turn go into the raiding stance, there won't be any rebellion. It's just like Attila's move 75%, camp, move 75%, camp, deal.

if rebellion is as tedious as in the current games, I am gonna mod it out. hopefully it can be modded.

[Zephyrus]

I hate to be that guy, but I am that guy: Person012345 is actually right completely right here, it would go against the very nature of an Ork Waaaaaaaaaagh! (unsure about the correct number of "a"s according to strict Orkish grammar rules) to stop for breathers.

Gameplay matters more than technicalities.

[LordInvictus]

If CA really meant they intend to include all the major races, lizardmen are coming at some point, so that means Lustria. Unless they do an expedition etc, like CoW did (but not with lizardmen).

Considering each consecutive game will expand the map and we have already seen evidence of work on Elven units, the High Elves will probably be present on Ulthuan, not an expedition. Of course, a westward expansion of the map will bring in Dark Elves (Naggaroth) and Lizardmen (Lustria) also.

[Ichon]

Doesn't Al actually say in the most recent Orc campaign video that more factions and more "landmasses" will be added? It was interesting phrase to me that seems to imply perhaps Empire style theaters with separate landmasses but even if it is a continuous map which is what they promised originally it definitely seems to rule out just adding fringes on the old world. Also how Estalia is contorted and shrunk in size makes me think we will see Lustria and Uluthan reachable on a continuous map.

As for the current extent of campaign map the overview on the scripted flight path was relatively low which makes the map scale appear slightly larger but I don't expect a Rome II size map in game 1 because of the later parts of the trilogy. It actually is about 60% of Rome II size to my view and if they add 20% and 40% more the final map will be about 20-25% larger than Rome II which is large enough for epic campaigns I think.

My main disappointments with the trailer was firstly the unimaginative importation of Attila mechanics into Greenskins style gameplay and not even changing economy much when they hinted earlier that Orc don't care much about taxes etc. Yeah basically that clue seems to have referred to lack of a civil research tech tree but otherwise Greenskins play exactly like any other TW faction without even trying to cover it up for immersion's sake.

The other big miss is with magic though to be fair we never saw a dedicated high level caster and if CA follows the incremental % increase approach after 20 levels of +5% increases a spell doing -4 morale would do -6 morale but that still seems very little though perhaps it is enough to make a wavering unit break. My larger concern was spell durations of 20 to 30 seconds when battles last 8-12 minutes on average so spell length is only 2-4% of avg length of a battle. That seems paltry for both bonus and hex magic and a return to Rome II button mashing that gives tiny bonus almost better to ignore and focus on maneuvering in battles instead.

[HigoChumbo]

@ dumb criticisms. campaign map is blah, let me show a picture where 70% of it is empty ocean and the other 30% is almost empty land, unimpressive!!! yeah!!! /s

I'm sorry, please do let me know the exact land-water ratio you require to judge whether a game looks graphically similar to its predecessor or not so that my next comment meets the intellectual heights of this debate.


In the meantime, I've cropped the sea for you:




In any case, it was not even criticism, but rather one of the arguments I used to back up that I don't think the campaign is a "huge step forward" as other users were saying. Yes, the cinematic campaign preview looks quite good, but I fear the actual campaign gameplay with no cinematic cameras will look a lot more similar to previous games. If you add to that that most gameplay mechanics look almost identical, well there you have my "dumb", unfounded argument.

The campaign map is similiar to Attila's at least in the UI. But I do think that the campaign map has alot more detail than any other total war map to date.

Yes, that's undeniable, but some basic improvements expected and natural, given it's a newer game, but that does not take away that they seem to be, essentially, quite similar. In terms of artistic design I do think they have done a good job. Aesthetically they've struck a nice balance between the more fairy-tale like fantasy representation and the darker, grimmer tone also fundamental to Warhammer.

Doesn't Al actually say in the most recent Orc campaign video that more factions and more "landmasses" will be added?

He said that the "extent of the campaign map will unfold with the two subsequent expansions".


More factions were confirmed since the beginning, in fact, they have said that their aim is to add all the factions.

[DavidtheDuke]

Considering each consecutive game will expand the map and we have already seen evidence of work on Elven units, the High Elves will probably be present on Ulthuan, not an expedition. Of course, a westward expansion of the map will bring in Dark Elves (Naggaroth) and Lizardmen (Lustria) also.

Yep, since I heard they plan all the factions and that each expansion is a standalone map part of a jigsaw, the biggest question now is if the map will be continuous or not, or like Empire, and also the shape of the various maps. Maybe the second game will just fleshout the old world much more, and then another standalone will add Lustria, Naggarond, and Ulthuan. Maybe Lustria and Araby, and then Ulthuan and Naggarond, with DLC packs and maybe even zoomed in campaign maps ala what was in Rome 2 and Attila so far.

Yes, that's undeniable, but some basic improvements expected and natural, given it's a newer game, but that does not take away that they seem to be, essentially, quite similar. In terms of artistic design I do think they have done a good job. Aesthetically they've struck a nice balance between the more fairy-tale like fantasy representation and the darker, grimmer tone also fundamental to Warhammer.

The art direction is good and very well done. The mechanics are basically like Attila though. The army stances just look like rejiggered numbers from Attila. In fact the only uniquely Orc thing that probably couldn't have been done by modders in Attila (apart from the new 3d models and magic/flying/monstrous-unit mechanics) so far I've seen is the extra Waaagh army you get.

[craziii]

I'm sorry, please do let me know the exact land-water ratio you require to judge whether a game looks graphically similar to its predecessor or not so that my next comment meets the intellectual heights of this debate.

omfg, look at the terrible map!!! look at how little it improved!

[Ciruelo]

sake that map is awesome.

[alex33]

i NEED the tomb kings and the skaven they are my fav races in warhammer. If they are not in any of the expansions i will cry like a baby