Orcs Campaign Playthrough

[Aquila_Mars]

Well since they said all 3 games combine, I highly doubt that the other warhammer games will use a diffirent engine. (in fact it is impossible unless they write the whole previous part) But we can always hope for the current engine being improved.

[craziii]

Now, on the image not representing ROUGHLY 1/8th of the playable area:



If you feel like my area of choice is too large, make it 1/10th if that's going to stop the debate. I assure you it's not a lot more than that.

And in any case, what it's straight undeniable is that there are at least 12 playable provinces in the image, not counting the sea regions. That's the equivalent of a region larger than all of Hispania, Italy or Gaul in Rome 2.

But I insist that I find this whole deal rather pointless.

I did complain about that. In fact you'll find tons of people here complaining about the franchise barely evolving since Empire. (There is a considerable jump between M2 and Empire, though). Years ago, TW was about "revolution and evolution", so we had pairs of games which were similar (Shogun1&Medieval1, Rome1&Medieval2, Empire&Napoleon), but that was not such a big issue since the franchise kept making reasonably large and regular enough jumps forward... but nowdays we have essentially had a really, really similar game for years (Shogun2, Rome2, Attila, Warhammer, and it could be argued that in a certain light Napoleon and Empire fall here as well).

I feel like we can't properly resolve this argument till we get a good look at the entire campaign map, if it is as small as you made it out to be. and we aren't being off topic as we are talking about the campaign map we are perfectly on topic higo. so a few more months or when ca streams on twitch. once we know for sure you will get a big fat I am wrong from me higo count on it. I expect the same from you.

I never criticized about your other complains or dislikes now did I? I have my own complains in those parts of the game. my only criticism was your screen cap it was one of the most unflattering screen caps I have ever seen, and you know it and you know why you did it don't deny it

below is a gif of the area that is represented in your 1/8th


gif starts right after your screen cap at about 1:35 in the video in the first post. all of the images are part of your 1/8th area except the last picture after the swamps. that is a hell of alot more better looking/positive than your screen cap right?

[sataricon]

Actually i don't understand the argument regarding how small the map is.
It's very clear that the map is very small.
Add that to the dumped down city management and you get to spend even less time on the map because guess what?
It's just the same build order you'll do for every province.

[HigoChumbo]

Well since they said all 3 games combine, I highly doubt that the other warhammer games will use a diffirent engine. (in fact it is impossible unless they write the whole previous part) But we can always hope for the current engine being improved.

Nah, the closest game we can hope has a new/vastly revamped engine is the next total war after Warhammer. That said, the good thing about Warhammer being a trilogy is that the extended development time will probably mean that by the end of it all we will have a very polished and solid game, albeit still fundamentally very similar to the other recent TW3 games.

I feel like we can't properly resolve this argument till we get a good look at the entire campaign map, if it is as small as you made it out to be.

Actually, here, draw your own conclussions.

It's not perfect but you can see that both the shoreline and the rivers are roughly on place. The image gets too distorted towards the corners of the broad side so you can pretty much disregard those, but for the most part, this gives a decent idea of how much of the map is in the image:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

my only criticism was your screen cap it was one of the most unflattering screen caps I have ever seen, and you know it and you know why you did it

Well, the thing is that, as I explained several times, my intention with that image was not to judge how good or bad the game looks, but merely to show that it will most likely look a lot different in-game than with cinematic fly-by cameras, and that the shot which looked the closest to an actual in-game camera (although quite zoomed out apparently) did indeed have a vibe very similar to the Rome2/Attila maps. What that meant was not that it looked bad (both Rome2 and Attila have gorgeous maps, and this is an improved version of those) but just that it was far from being a completelly fresh and shiny campaign design. More like a slightly improved version of the same old same old adapted to a fantasy setting.

To summarize. I didn't say it looks bad, I said it looks similar to the previous games in terms of its foundations (both graphical and gameplay wise).

below is a gif of the area that is represented in your 1/8th

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

gif starts right after your screen cap at about 1:35 in the video in the first post. all of the images are part of your 1/8th area except the last picture after the swamps. that is a hell of alot more better looking/positive than your screen cap right?

But, again, my intention was never to critizise how good or bad the game looks, but rather that it looks really different with a zoomed out, gameplay-like camera and with a cinematic fly-by camera, as your own arguments are confirming. The point is that, while the cinematic video does indeed look quite good, even fresh, my impression is that the actual gameplay might look a lot more similar to what we are accustomed than the video leads to believe. That's all.

Actually i don't understand the argument regarding how small the map is.
It's very clear that the map is very small.

That's the issue, I did not complain about the map being small (it's smaller, but for me that's not a bad thing, I think they are trying to replicate the features that made Shogun 2 successful, and I don't feel like this map would leave me wanting more, not to mention that apparently is going to be expanded). My cropped image and my claim that it seems to be 1/8th - 1/10th of the total map was not intended to say the maps is small, but that the screenshot I posted was large enough to be representative and to be used to draw conclussions, and not just a tiny, irrelevant patch of empty land, as was suggested.

Add that to the dumped down city management and you get to spend even less time on the map because guess what?
It's just the same build order you'll do for every province.

Honestly, city management and the campaign in general have always been so bad, boring and repetitive that I won't even miss any of that. The game will probably be better and more enjoyable than any previous TW. It's just that it won't really be that different from previous games.

[Markas]

You can't really dumb down city management as it has always been pretty perfunctory, but the Rome 2 style icons take away any fun you might get from building. Attila's were nicely illustrated, so why the reversion? The tech tree could use a bit more of the same magic as well.

As for the general construction system, I don't want a return to the 'every city is universalmanufactory#[insertnumberhere]' of the older games. Losing a city didn't mean anything.

[DavidtheDuke]

It's just the same build order you'll do for every province.

I wouldn't say that so much, you have to specialize provinces if you want to maximize their output of something, like food or military buildings.

But yeah, I don't see how that wont' be different here, and the orcs might be so simplistic that in their case you're actually very right, and not so much with other factions like dwarves, humans, and elves.

[craziii]

Actually, here, draw your own conclussions.

It's not perfect but you can see that both the shoreline and the rivers are roughly on place. The image gets too distorted towards the corners of the broad side so you can pretty much disregard those, but for the most part, this gives a decent idea of how much of the map is in the image:

Well, the thing is that, as I explained several times, my intention with that image was not to judge how good or bad the game looks, but merely to show that it will most likely look a lot different in-game than with cinematic fly-by cameras, and that the shot which looked the closest to an actual in-game camera (although quite zoomed out apparently) did indeed have a vibe very similar to the Rome2/Attila maps. What that meant was not that it looked bad (both Rome2 and Attila have gorgeous maps, and this is an improved version of those) but just that it was far from being a completelly fresh and shiny campaign design. More like a slightly improved version of the same old same old adapted to a fantasy setting.

To summarize. I didn't say it looks bad, I said it looks similar to the previous games in terms of its foundations (both graphical and gameplay wise).

But, again, my intention was never to critizise how good or bad the game looks, but rather that it looks really different with a zoomed out, gameplay-like camera and with a cinematic fly-by camera, as your own arguments are confirming. The point is that, while the cinematic video does indeed look quite good, even fresh, my impression is that the actual gameplay might look a lot more similar to what we are accustomed than the video leads to believe. That's all.

would you like me to post a screen shot of attila at max zoom out covering the entire spanish sub continent? or the entirety of france/ghaul? because all you need to do that is to tilt the camera, just like the video.

so, is the attila grand campaign map small?

completely fresh and shiny campaign map design is just a pipe dream bro. what we get with every new TW game is basically a new iteration with a new theme. this criticism is just a non starter. At least this time around, we get awesome looking cities, mountains, and terrain(the swamp you pointed out is a perfect example)

again, my only criticism was on your screen cap, what it implies. I have zero opinions on your other complains about the campaign map, as every gamer have their own tastes/wants, they are just your opinions.

now the million dollar question: what exactly would make it into a "shiny/completely fresh campaign map design?

[DavidtheDuke]

now the million dollar question: what exactly would make it into a "shiny/completely fresh campaign map design?

DWARF UNDERWAYS!!! I want Karl Franz riding deathclaw attacking skavenblight underground, bumping into every jagged rock, cursing and falling into a mass of smelly slave rats!

[craziii]

DWARF UNDERWAYS!!! I want Karl Franz riding deathclaw attacking skavenblight underground, bumping into every jagged rock, cursing and falling into a mass of smelly slave rats!

I wanted greenskins and skavens. I am getting one in the first game, maybe the 2nd in the 2nd game! the map can be 1/2 the size of the current game, but with 2 layers skavens vs the empire dukedoms. kekeke.

[LordInvictus]

You can't really dumb down city management as it has always been pretty perfunctory, but the Rome 2 style icons take away any fun you might get from building. Attila's were nicely illustrated, so why the reversion? The tech tree could use a bit more of the same magic as well.

I'm pretty sure that the UI icons are stylized for each faction. The Orcs aren't known for their skill and appreciation of the fine arts so they have more simplistic icons.

[HigoChumbo]

would you like me to post a screen shot of attila at max zoom out covering the entire spanish sub continent? or the entirety of france/ghaul? because all you need to do that is to tilt the camera, just like the video.

Those are fitting examples, since, as I said in my last post, that area, with at least 12 provinces, is actually larger than Hispania or Gaul in Rome 2, not in terms of raw size, but in terms of number of provinces. But I insist, for the third time, that this conversation is pointless since I never, ever, complained about the map being small, and the amount of land covered by the screenshot is completelly irrelevant to my original argument.


The size of the map TW:Warhammer is perfectly fine in my opinion, and the visual details are cool and really fitting in terms of artistic design. I have not once discussed that. Shall we move on?

completely fresh and shiny campaign map design is just a pipe dream bro.

Why is it a dream exactly to expect large qualitative jumps in gaming every now and then? By the time Warhammer is released it would have been 7 years since Empire and 5 since Shogun 2. The huge jump from Battlefield 2 to Battlefield 3 took 6 years. Between Rome 1 and Shogun 1 there were only 4 years. Between Rome 1 and the next considerable jump forward, Empire, 5 years. From Medieval 1 to Shogun 2 we have had a vastly different campaign every two games. If you consider direct sequels as well, you have that Rome 1 is completelly different from Rome 2, that Medieval 1 is completelly different from Medieval 2, that Shogun 1 is completelly different from Shogun 2... and now we are getting the first ever fantasy game in 16 years of Total War and it turns out that it's in many ways almost a carbon copy of the previous three historical games? Tell me that's not a total bummer.

So I ask again, why would it have been a dream to expect that a game with no precedents in the franchise, which is going to be released some 5-7 years since the last major jump forward, was made with a fresh design? Why is it a dream that one expects a professional creative designer to approach a game about the classical world or the dark ages in a completelly different fashion than a high fantasy game set in an alternative, mostly renaissance-like universe?


Hell... one of my favourite old-time tactical real time strategy developers is now making an open world, 3d person, RPG shooter... was it really so much to expect that CA did not just altogether recycle a game about huns and romans to make a game about dragons, wizards and vampires? It's not like I was asking that they turned Total War into a shooter...

At least this time around, we get awesome looking cities, mountains, and terrain

The campaign map in Total War has been looking consistently gorgeous since Shogun 2. Looking good did not make Rome 2's campaign any better, and it was, in fact, rather boring, repetitive and uninspired. And it's quite depressing that visual details are so far the only thing we have to look forward to. I have had more fun with 2d games like Faster than Light than I have had in years with the tedious Total War campaigns despite all their flashy mountains and cities.

again, my only criticism was on your screen cap, what it implies

And again, what I implied with that image is not what you are saying it implies. It was just an argument to back up that the game is going to be similar to Attila. I'm not precisely the only one saying that, by the way.

now the million dollar question: what exactly would make it into a "shiny/completely fresh campaign map design?

What would make a new, fresh campaign map would be to actually make a new, fresh campaign map, sitting in a room and brainstorming how they would ideally want a Warhammer game to be and work towards that creative vision instead of picking up an pre-existing, completelly unrelated campaign map and just giving it new coat of paint, throwing in a few gimmicks here and there and blatantly recycling entire mechanics from the previous game.

If you want specifics, there are truckloads of threads by TWC users with suggestions about really cool features which could be added to Total War, and I'm fairly positive that if the creative guys at CA had had the freedom and resources to do what they had in their minds, the game they would have come up with would probably have not looked at all as Warhammer is looking so far.

But in any case, I repeat, yet again, that when I said the game is going to be really similar to Attila I was not even critizising it, but rather replying to some users which were saying stuff like the campaign is a big leap forward in Total War, and that's something I honestly completely fail to see, so far. All I see are pretty graphics and a truckload of lazy/uninspired workarounds with the only goal of trying to make Warhammer pass for something other than an Attila transvestite.

DWARF UNDERWAYS!!!

The way they have dealt with that is actually a perfect example of the workarounds I was talking about above. But I still have the faith in them adding an actual, fully fledged undeground system when they implement the Skaven. Here is to hoping.

[Henchman#24]

Actually i don't understand the argument regarding how small the map is.
It's very clear that the map is very small.
Add that to the dumped down city management and you get to spend even less time on the map because guess what?
It's just the same build order you'll do for every province.

Eh, the map looks plenty big enough. There's a finite amount of space in the Old World anyways. We're getting two more expansions that will extend it in any case. As for the building chains, I rather prefer the system where there are a finite amount of slots per city. Much more strategic than the Medieval 2 "Just build everything everywhere, who gives a damn" that so many people seem to be missing. As for a lack of variety in building types...well I don't know what you were expecting from the Greenskins.

Besides, a more compact map means your always within reach of something to fight.

[Markas]

I'm pretty sure that the UI icons are stylized for each faction. The Orcs aren't known for their skill and appreciation of the fine arts so they have more simplistic icons.

Yeah but it's the simplistic icon-based building UI that my issue is with.

[Candy_Licker]

Absolutelly no one here is asking for a new engine for each game, but we have had the same engine for 7 years and 6 games, and we are talking about games which should have hugely different creative development approaches as Empire, Rome or Warhammer.

If there was ever a perfect moment to make a jump forward rather than just recycling old assets, it was with Warhammer.

Yeah RomeII and especially Attila clearly showed that it's really time for a new engine. The engine is technicially outdated, nevermind the gameplay elements (correctly or falsely attributed) to this engine.

[Frost, colonel]

But I still have the faith in them adding an actual, fully fledged undeground system when they implement the Skaven. Here is to hoping.

Do I presume that in some of these underground systems giants won't fit? I know the Dwarfs despite their own height cut out cavernous systems, and that the Skaven have rat ogres, but on the whole should many of these underground systems be less cavernous? Should it be narrow tunnels linking up caverns?

If we see smaller confined passages in the game it will lead to some epic blood baths as you drive forward cutting a swathe through packed ranks. Fire is gonna be good here, something the Dwarf engineers have. How about magic fire, does it work well underground, as in can it be summoned underground?

[DavidtheDuke]

The way they have dealt with that is actually a perfect example of the workarounds I was talking about above. But I still have the faith in them adding an actual, fully fledged undeground system when they implement the Skaven. Here is to hoping.

Exactly how I felt, it seemd cheap at the moment, as if there's a underway every 50 yards. We're not in New York guys, there isn't a subway station every few blocks!

[Frost, colonel]

Exactly how I felt, it seemd cheap at the moment, as if there's a underway every 50 yards. We're not in New York guys, there isn't a subway station every few blocks!

Do I presume correctly that this 'subway' should predominantly be only around cultures like the Dwarf-en cities, or say the Skaven or after the Skaven taking a human city, or even a human city with an advanced sewer system?
How about when the Skaven or Dwarfs lay siege?

[DavidtheDuke]

Do I presume correctly that this 'subway' should predominantly be only around cultures like the Dwarf-en cities, or say the Skaven or after the Skaven taking a human city, or even a human city with an advanced sewer system?
How about when the Skaven or Dwarfs lay siege?

Yes, it should mostly be around dwarf and skaven settlements, but there should also be long tunnels under the empire. (like a long tunnel between clan moulder and skavenblight) But not everywhere, nor should there be an entrance basically anywhere, as it appears to be the case right now.

[Markas]

Think I'd prefer pre-existing tunnel-ways but I can see why it's been abstracted as a general skill somewhat. It wouldn't be a useful skill if I could just park my armies where I knew the entrances were to trap an enemy, especially if it's a bunch of squishable gobbos.

[craziii]

The size of the map TW:Warhammer is perfectly fine in my opinion, and the visual details are cool and really fitting in terms of artistic design. I have not once discussed that. Shall we move on?

as long as you think it is fine, I got no arguments with you.

Why is it a dream exactly to expect large qualitative jumps in gaming every now and then? By the time Warhammer is released it would have been 7 years since Empire and 5 since Shogun 2. The huge jump from Battlefield 2 to Battlefield 3 took 6 years. Between Rome 1 and Shogun 1 there were only 4 years. Between Rome 1 and the next considerable jump forward, Empire, 5 years. From Medieval 1 to Shogun 2 we have had a vastly different campaign every two games. If you consider direct sequels as well, you have that Rome 1 is completelly different from Rome 2, that Medieval 1 is completelly different from Medieval 2, that Shogun 1 is completelly different from Shogun 2... and now we are getting the first ever fantasy game in 16 years of Total War and it turns out that it's in many ways almost a carbon copy of the previous three historical games? Tell me that's not a total bummer.

So I ask again, why would it have been a dream to expect that a game with no precedents in the franchise, which is going to be released some 5-7 years since the last major jump forward, was made with a fresh design? Why is it a dream that one expects a professional creative designer to approach a game about the classical world or the dark ages in a completelly different fashion than a high fantasy game set in an alternative, mostly renaissance-like universe?

Hell... one of my favourite old-time tactical real time strategy developers is now making an open world, 3d person, RPG shooter... was it really so much to expect that CA did not just altogether recycle a game about huns and romans to make a game about dragons, wizards and vampires? It's not like I was asking that they turned Total War into a shooter...

s1 + m1 were 2d risk style maps, super simple as each province = 1 tile. rome1 and m2 gave us 3d maps and hundreds of tiles per province. warscape engine gave us few thousand times that or more and the biggest reason why empire was such a huge mess for 6 months after release. what else can ca do? give us smaller dots on the map? like the pixel rate of monitors? campaign map wise, I am almost 100% sure ca has reach it's limit unless they come out with a better cai. all we are gonna see in future tw games are stuff we are already seeing. purely cosmetic, but great looking. what else is there? it is a glorified 3D model where we move troop stacks on.

carbon copy? and here I thought you liked the campaign map. total bummer? you need to have some realistic expectations.

you want completely new everything it seems. that is why I called it a pipe dream. there are no completely original game designs in 2015. I personally want future total war games to keep the good features of the older titles, I am sure most would agree with me. new for the sake of new? please. Ca took away the defend button from rome 2 and attila units, that has annoyed me to no end.

point out a freaking AAA game sequel with 100% new game design and new engine. I will gladly concede this point if you can.

The campaign map in Total War has been looking consistently gorgeous since Shogun 2. Looking good did not make Rome 2's campaign any better, and it was, in fact, rather boring, repetitive and uninspired. And it's quite depressing that visual details are so far the only thing we have to look forward to. I have had more fun with 2d games like Faster than Light than I have had in years with the tedious Total War campaigns despite all their flashy mountains and cities.

we are talking about the campaign map, not the features. focus please. if you think tw games are not fun anymore, stick with FTL. no one can stop you.

And again, what I implied with that image is not what you are saying it implies. It was just an argument to back up that the game is going to be similar to Attila. I'm not precisely the only one saying that, by the way.

we all know why you picked that screen cap, lets just drop it.

What would make a new, fresh campaign map would be to actually make a new, fresh campaign map, sitting in a room and brainstorming how they would ideally want a Warhammer game to be and work towards that creative vision instead of picking up an pre-existing, completelly unrelated campaign map and just giving it new coat of paint, throwing in a few gimmicks here and there and blatantly recycling entire mechanics from the previous game.

If you want specifics, there are truckloads of threads by TWC users with suggestions about really cool features which could be added to Total War, and I'm fairly positive that if the creative guys at CA had had the freedom and resources to do what they had in their minds, the game they would have come up with would probably have not looked at all as Warhammer is looking so far.

But in any case, I repeat, yet again, that when I said the game is going to be really similar to Attila I was not even critizising it, but rather replying to some users which were saying stuff like the campaign is a big leap forward in Total War, and that's something I honestly completely fail to see, so far. All I see are pretty graphics and a truckload of lazy/uninspired workarounds with the only goal of trying to make Warhammer pass for something other than an Attila transvestite.

cool features? brainstorm? like your paradox ideas? you want warhammer to behave like the EU series?

I want new fresh ideas, totally new campaign map and features!!! so what do you want? I want fresh new campaign map and features!!! so what do you want? yea, I can see the circle jerk alright.

and don't mind me for pointing this out, ca is never gonna implement your ideas. you want ca to look at your ideas? create a mod with your ideas and the mod has to be very popular, like EB of rome 1. CA took alot of ideas from EB mod. and that is 10 years ago when the TW series was relatively fresh. everything you can think of they already did by this point. the series is 15 years old now, you are NOT better than ca game designers or modders of the last 15 years. whether or not the ideas become part of the game is up to CA. no one is going to risk millions on some unproven idea posted on some dingy fan forum. even tw warhammer is happening because of the warhammer mod, I would bet on it. the highly stylized settlement art we see in the video? ca got this idea from the lotr mod.

a simple list of major features: 3d map in rome 1, naval battles since ETW, rome 2 gave us landings(huuuuuge feature imo), expanded horde mode in attila. I actually consider replenishment to be a major feature as I cannot play any tw game without it now.
minor features like building conversion, unit upgrades, seasons, province system, army stack stances etc are worth mentioning but not important enough to be game changing.

the changes I hated, just a couple: building slots in settlements(made the campaign map too gamey for me) I hate how I can't give provinces to my generals, the political system still needs alot of improvement.

you want real changes? changes like the above? be less whimsical, wishful, show CA it can work. this step requires alot of work, requires you to make mods. up for taht challenge with the warscape engine? not just: ca I want this in the game, make it happen. another way, lesser option is to write very, very convincing, well thought out arguments. and hoping someone from ca would read it and take notice.

my honest opinion? alot of stuff that you wrote basically boils down to this: I want this in the game, make it happpen. I have no idea how this will work in a tw game but it works really well in this EU game or this other game. do this: make a thread for every major feature/idea you want ca to look at. focus, sell that feature, detail how that feature would work in a TW game, not how that feature works in another game. that is 1 thread per major feature. I don't dislike passionate people. just gotta use it right.

ps: no one likes reading through an essay in a forum post. this will be my last long winded post.