Azhag quest battle video released

[LionElJonson]

It's called criticism, and it is well warranted with CA's track record. This forum actually used to have members much more critical than me, though it appears many have moved on, dismayed at the state of the Total War series. I did for quite a while, just thought I'd check out the forums so close to new release. If people like the half-hearted garbage CA put out now, that's fine, but people will always remember what these games were as opposed to what they are now.

It's funny how people like you always bring up "track records" but choose to ignore the games that have actually been pretty good on launch, such as Attila or S2. I guess only the poor releases and business practises (DLC) are the things that suit your narrative though?

[ostendadler]

Let's face it. 10 years ago video games use to be the laughed out media developped by nerds and history/lore lovers. Now its the biggest segment for entertainment.

CA is not in the business of fullfilling our nerdy/lore/history/geek wishes but are here to make money and tons of it.

They've made of matrix of work vs time of development and will spend nore more than necessary to make sure money comes in.

Its just business now

[SKSlave]

Rome and Medieval had actual tactical depth. The AI didn't betray you randomly - if you left a frontier exposed, it made an effort to take your province from you. This makes more sense than Rome II's, "I'm not entering a mutually beneficial trading agreement with you because reasons" crap. Units in battles had sensible and realistic abilities: archers could use normal or fire arrows, and fire arrows weren't some kind of "bonus ammunition" for extra damage. It had a tactical slant - fire arrows fired slower but ruined enemy moral quicker. The engine worked much better than the Warscape disaster. No nonsensical 1v1 engagements. Melee brawls were that - melees with every man fighting for his life. Actual unit collision. Men in units weren't as robotic and didn't all move at the same time. The music in Rome and Medieval was far superior to anything in Empire, Napoleon or Rome II.

The "glory days" as you call them are those which you conveniently, probably purposefully, ignored. The vast majority of fans recognise Shogun 2 and Fall of the Samurai as the series' pinnacle. We still had the warscape issue, but it worked much better in this game. The UI, music, tech trees, settlements, pure rock-paper-scissors style combat, naval battles, diplomacy, character progression, agents and so on were so much better than everything that followed. Mods weren't needed to fix Shogun 2 or FotS. Gigabytes of mods were needed to make Rome II tolerable.

It's funny how people like you always bring up "track records" but choose to ignore the games that have actually been pretty good on launch, such as Attila or S2. I guess only the poor releases and business practises (DLC) are the things that suit your narrative though?

I've mentioned plenty of times, such as my post above this, that Shogun 2 worked out of the box. I'm not ignoring anything. I was happy when they released Shogun 2, so please don't talk garbage. Am I meant to be impressed or something that one game out of what, three or four, functions out of the box?

[CK23]

Rome and Medieval had actual tactical depth. The AI didn't betray you randomly - if you left a frontier exposed, it made an effort to take your province from you. This makes more sense than Rome II's, "I'm not entering a mutually beneficial trading agreement with you because reasons" crap. Units in battles had sensible and realistic abilities: archers could use normal or fire arrows, and fire arrows weren't some kind of "bonus ammunition" for extra damage. It had a tactical slant - fire arrows fired slower but ruined enemy moral quicker. The engine worked much better than the Warscape disaster. No nonsensical 1v1 engagements. Melee brawls were that - melees with every man fighting for his life. Actual unit collision. Men in units weren't as robotic and didn't all move at the same time. The music in Rome and Medieval was far superior to anything in Empire, Napoleon or Rome II.

The "glory days" as you call them are those which you conveniently, probably purposefully, ignored. The vast majority of fans recognise Shogun 2 and Fall of the Samurai as the series' pinnacle. We still had the warscape issue, but it worked much better in this game. The UI, music, tech trees, settlements, pure rock-paper-scissors style combat, naval battles, diplomacy, character progression, agents and so on were so much better than everything that followed. Mods weren't needed to fix Shogun 2 or FotS. Gigabytes of mods were needed to make Rome II tolerable.

Really? When I had a full stack legion and a full stack in the city, standing on the frontier to Germania, them attacking that is what? "tactical depth"? I'm sorry, we must have a much greater difference in opinion of what "tactical depth" is. Fire arrows in Rome II and Atilla make sense, they do more damage. Being lit on fire does a significant more amount of damage than not being lit on fire I'd say.

Oh you mean diplomacy? I mean, I could see states not entering into mutually beneficial trade agreements because they hate each other. Actually, that's pretty damn real world to me. Countries and governments have not agreed with each other for centuries because "You did this thing that one time." I happen to find diplomacy, while a little "meh" sometimes, to be somewhat tolerable.

I didn't ignore them, I never played them extensively enough to really see what the difference was. As a Total War fan, most of the games have always left me feeling "empty" so to speak because they get boring quick. Not because of the game, because of me.

Also, if music is really a game breaker for you, then I feel bad for you son...I got 99 problems and google music ain't one.

[Tankbustaz]

Why can't I hold all these (You)s

If only (You) had unit collision.

[SKSlave]

Really? When I had a full stack legion and a full stack in the city, standing on the frontier to Germania, them attacking that is what? "tactical depth"? I'm sorry, we must have a much greater difference in opinion of what "tactical depth" is. Fire arrows in Rome II and Atilla make sense, they do more damage. Being lit on fire does a significant more amount of damage than not being lit on fire I'd say.

Oh you mean diplomacy? I mean, I could see states not entering into mutually beneficial trade agreements because they hate each other. Actually, that's pretty damn real world to me. Countries and governments have not agreed with each other for centuries because "You did this thing that one time." I happen to find diplomacy, while a little "meh" sometimes, to be somewhat tolerable.

I didn't ignore them, I never played them extensively enough to really see what the difference was. As a Total War fan, most of the games have always left me feeling "empty" so to speak because they get boring quick. Not because of the game, because of me.

Also, if music is really a game breaker for you, then I feel bad for you son...I got 99 problems and google music ain't one.

Fire arrows in Rome II don't make sense at all. Why should the units be limited to a brief session of fire arrows and then revert to normal arrows? Oh yeah, so people don't have to decide what is best tactically and can just press the button for super awesome extra damage. It's arcadey nonsense.

I'm sorry, but your trade excuse is feeble. There is literally no excuse to not enter into a trade relationship, even if the factions hate each other. You both get money, there is no finite amount of trade deals you can have. It's just bonehead AI and frustrating for the player. Also, your excuse doesn't explain the factions that won't trade with you even if you are friendly. The diplomacy is utter crap.

People have asked me what I'm doing here because I dared voice negative opinions of the games. You don't seem to be much of a fan at all... you get bored quickly and leave you feeling empty? Why should I take your opinions as anything when you haven't even properly played the highlights of the series? What are YOU doing here?

Music isn't a game breaker, but it's a good indication of a crap game. The music can add to the tension and drama of a moment. Rome II's is just garbage. A good game should engage both your sight and sound. Rome II and Warhammer, from the looks of it, do not.

[LionElJonson]

Fire arrows in Rome and Attila don't make sense at all. Why should the units be limited to a brief session of fire arrows and then revert to normal arrows? Oh yeah, so people don't have to decide what is best tactically and can just press the button for super awesome extra damage. It's arcadey nonsense.

What are you even on about? That's now how they work at all. In attila you can toggle several different kinds of ammunition based on what you need. Which is the opposite of what you're claiming. Have you even played the game?

[SKSlave]

No I haven't. From what I seen in videos I thought it used the same system as Rome II. I'll edit the post accordingly - the rest still stands however.

[IGdood]

If only (You) had unit collision.

That explains the lack of mass and substance.

Fire arrows in Rome II don't make sense at all. Why should the units be limited to a brief session of fire arrows and then revert to normal arrows? Oh yeah, so people don't have to decide what is best tactically and can just press the button for super awesome extra damage. It's arcadey nonsense.

Are you sure you're not confusing Shogun 2 with Rome 2?

[Charerg]

Actually the trade agreement business did work better in Medieval II, there the computer will generally trade unless you have really bad relationships or really untrustworthy reputation. In Attila and Rome II they simply won't trade unless you're well into the green and sometimes not even then. In general, the lack of diplomatic options is one of the big flaws in TW.

I have to say that while the battles have generally speaking improved from Med II the same can't be said for the campaign mechanics, which have suffered some serious downgrades. To list a few:

- Loss of the old trait system for characters in favour of some rpg-style levelling stuff which is actually a lot worse for roleplaying than the old system...ironically
- Garrison armies: instead of the garrisons being formed by actual units recruited and paid for by the player/AI the garrisons are now automatic, which I consider a downgrade. I preferred the old system with all the cities walled, but with no "automatic garrisons", this adds to the strategy as some cities will have to be left largely undefended by both the player and the computer.
- The new public order system is inferior by far. Now the population has no effect, a huge city and a village in a middle of nowhere require the same garrison to maintain public order, which is completely nonsensical
- The new corruption system is inferior. In the old system corruption depended on distance from the capital, and you could build certain buildings to reduce it. Now it's just a blanket corruption value across all your domains.
- The arbitrary army limits, once again severely limiting strategic options
- The campaign map feels distinctly smaller with oversized cities, vast control zones limiting movement, pre-defined narrow paths limiting movement, and some areas like Arabia and Persia being made artificially smaller relative to Europe
- The lack of automatic reinforcement meant that you had to organize some sort of "supply line" to keep your armies in fighting condition, meaning you couldn't just recover your losses easily (especially not with elite units with limited recruitment)

Overall there definitely are a lot of things that were genuinely better implemented in the older Total Wars.

Re: Flaming arrows

Well, both Med II and other iterations of flaming arrows are nonsensical in the sense that they would be completely useless versus anything except wooden buildings (and siege weaponry) in real life. You're not going to be "set on fire" by having an arrow with a small burning rag sticking somewhere, that can be easily extinguished. The Attila iteration is the better one in the sense that archers with flaming arrows can target wooden buildings and set them on fire. Although in Rome II there was this weird "pyromanic obsession" with magical torches and "flaming javelins" and I really hope those won't make an apprearance in any future title.

[Påsan]

Guys, thread is about the recent gameplay video. Not "best tw of all time" Back on topic please.

[Markas]

The usual spin. A generous helping of bull excrement sprinkled with a little dabble of truth to make it believable. Some things are just outrageous.

Wow I guess it really did trigger some people. Many a true word said in jest I guess.

CA really need to just stop this communicating and responding to queries practice. Apparently they are less trustful than Goebbels yet can inspire just as much vitriol.

[kelembribor21]

There is Q&A about the battle that is relevant to the discussion :

(source : https://forums.totalwar.com/discussi...ick-q-a#latest) posted 1st by Aedh here

Did you catch Azhag’s Ard Armour Quest Battle gameplay that was out on Monday? If not check it out here:


If you have, then you might have some questions and we've collected some of the most burning ones below to get the latest answers on:

The graphics! The pixels! The lighting!
So some of you have noticed that Youtube compression hasn’t helped some parts of the video, we’re looking in to what we can do about that in the future. Others have commented on the ‘browness’ etc. Thing is, there’s a number of different lighting set-ups that can affect a battle depending on the environment, which army is defending, what the weather is like and a little bit of random variation. It all effects how the units look against the battlefield. That lighting isn’t final either.

As for anti-aliasing, in order of increasing quality, there are options for No AA, MLAA, MSAA x2, MSAA x4 and MSAA x8. Darren captured the battle using MLAA. That’s from our work in progress build and we will be releasing official specs soon.


Orc Stink Clouds!
These were dust clouds bugging out, they won’t look like stink clouds at launch. There’s nothing special about Orc’s and their stench planned for the game particularly. Certainly not in terms of representing it graphically on the battlefield.


Arrow Trails are too fat!
Yes, and they will be toned down for launch. There’s also the option to turn them off entirely as the guys mentioned in the video.


Unit sizes are too big/too small/just right!
You can adjust these from the front end depending on the capability of your rig, as with previous titles, and they are in line with previous games. However, to represent the more extreme mix of unit types in TW:Warhammer, there is far greater variation in the number of troops per unit. So for example, while Goblin Spearmen will equal Rome II-style 160 man/gobbo units on ‘ultra’, Black Orcs or Trolls are going to number fewer due to their elite status and/or size.


AI behaviour is bad/good/just right!
We’re going to leave it to Youtubers, reviewers and yourselves to judge the AI as you will eventually, but it’s worth pointing out that as a Quest Battle, this is a specifically set-up battle that offers a tailored challenge to the player, like a puzzle that needs solving with the tools you have. The AI has some scripted behaviours and isn’t a reflection of the general land battle AI you’d face outside of a Quest Battle. So, yes the Bretonnians are set to do certain things, like run the supporting cavalry up to meet you, and not sit on the hill waiting for you to approach. Darren played and lost the battle 7 times (sorry Darren) before landing on the ‘solution’ and winning Azhag’s magic armour loot.


Battles are too fast/units break too quick!
Again, something worth judging when there’s more opinions out there. We’re still balancing at the moment, but getting this aspect correct for everyone is difficult. The general aim could be said to be heading more towards where ATTILA’s battle speed and feel is at currently. The idea being that once sides engage, you have a good chance to perform tactical decisions and manoeuvres that will affect the outcome.


Unit variety/where are the knights?
As mentioned in the video, this is a lower-level Quest Battle, one of the first Azhag can come up against, and as such is tailored appropriately to have a Bretonnian army with certain units in. Rest assured that the Bretonnian’s will come at you with knights too. Look here’s a picture of what you’ll be up against:

[Sharpe]

Rome and Medieval had actual tactical depth. The AI didn't betray you randomly.

I'm sorry, I like the originals as much as anybody but you are utterly deluded if you think there was any rhyme or reason to their AI.

SWEET BABY JESUS DEM KNIGHTS

[CK23]

I just re-watched the video much more closely, few things:

1) Tactically, the AI uses cavalry pretty well I thought. Charge in, charge out, attempted to get behind the units to attack them in the rear. Pretty common tactics for even a 'uman player if I might say so myself. AI using magic to assist troops.

2) The "quickness" of the battle, its a little annoying but also at the same time I imagine with harder difficulty we get a higher morale for units and units tend to be a bit more tactical. I know I've played on normal and higher difficulties and found myself cursing at the screen when units rout. I can see it as a concern, but I envision that eventually modders will edit that if it is not editable by higher difficultly levels. (I also think that its made for the more casual gamer which the series is attempting to attract rather than us armchair generals, but I do not mind 15-20 minute battles. I think thats good personally).

I also took the fact that from TT, most of the Bretonnian units short of Knights and the upper tier units are pretty much peasants much akin to the Empire's units, they'd be pretty scared dealing with massive orcs.

3) The "cloney" units. I'll relent and say yeah, I dislike this. I'd love the variety of TT but reading another thread a guy made a good point that going from 12 units to 160 in a unit is pretty much a huge upscale from TT but I'll hold out on the fact that we might see a little variety. Ideally, we'll see an army painter which has apparently been floated (Did you know that? I didn't know that.)

Someone from TT might know better, that purple and gold/yellow color...is that a specific Bretonnian duchy/province or whatever?

4) Overall, it does kind of look like Atilla with a "mod" but from what we've seen I don't think its enough to entirely judge but I always felt that from Rome II to Atilla to AoC felt similar but all had different "feels" to it. I think immersion will come when we're staring at what appears to be a beautiful campaign map. I hope for diverse landscapes that Warhammer has to offer (see Warhammer: Age of Reckoning for the diversity)

5) I like the magic, I think it looks pretty cool and I am going to hope and pray that they add the different lores of magic but I'll settle for a good first attempt at magic and it appears that they have it right.

6) My one gripe, the physics honestly...when Azhag attacks the trebuchets...c'mon. That's a little bad. I understand the "gameyness" of it but a wayvern wing should send those things either flying or break them. Nvidia physics or something, steal from the Force Unleashed lmao.

7) The mention of a "beta" version. Now, right, this could be a tactic but I just cannot imagine it isn't true. I've played some beta's before and honestly the week of release and the previous week's beta always appear different. Guild Wars comes to mind actually, that beta and the game itself...night and day in my eyes. I cannot envision GW letting CA mess it up, GW is hurting for money as is CA (from the rumor mill) and if GW can ride the wave of having "The World As We Knew It" succeed it might bring them some success in the WHFB department that has sucked since AoS released.

Let the butthurt and attacking begin!

[Charerg]

Well, as pointed out the discussion isn't really about which game has the best AI, but Med II actually had pretty good Campaign AI (at least in modded versions). Certainly the Campaign AI was/is better than what one sees in Attila for the most part.

More on topic, it's good that CA has read the criticisms (and responded). At this point it's probably too late for them to make any major changes, but as CA said, we'll see how good the AI is once the game is released. I wouldn't get my hopes too high though, it's unlikely the AI will be significantly better than what is seen in Attila. If only they'd operate on a more loose schedule, we could see battles like this earlier in the development cycle, and the input might actually be implemented, now I'm a bit worried that the game will be less than stellar at launch and only become good after several patches. Oh well, at least it's unlikely it will be as bad as Rome II...

[CK23]

@Charerg - Honestly, I think comparing Med II and Atilla AI are tough because you have vastly different geopolitical situations. The chaos of Atilla make sense to me historically, while the kind of eerie calm, sometimes chaotic scenarios of Med II make sense to me as well.

As I said previously, I feel like GW had their hand in the pot a lot more than we might initially believe and if the launch falls flat on its face...we might see GW step in more because after all, it is their IP.

[Markas]

In Med 2 any factions could march across your lands without you being able to do much about it. It made the campaign AI a joke. I really really hope we don't see a return to that in Warhammer.

[Sharpe]

Yeah I far far preferred not being able to even access lands without military access like in Shogun, but I know horde mechanics have changed this.

[hep]

Firstly, god job CA for responding to the criticism. Its refreshing to see that they take everything on board and that they don't bury their heads in the sand like they used to. Credit where credit is due.

The graphics! The pixels! The lighting!
I defeinitely agree that youtube compression has made things look bad. However it wouldn't surprise me if there were a few graphical glitches in there as well. Personally I am not as bothered about graphical glitches, so I don't consider it to be a major issue. I would rather see the gameplay put right first.

Unit sizes are too big/too small/just right!
Personally, I'm not bothered about having 1000's of men per unit, I can live with smaller units. However, I am bothered about how many men per unit there are in relation to the other units.
I was particularly worried after thundering falls; 160 goblins per unit compared to 140 dwarfs per unit of warriors. the ratio is too close, when you consider how many goblins to dwarfs the TT points allow and that we have a maximum number of units per army as opposed to an overall army points total.
Goblins will end up being a useless unit late game, because they cannot perform the role of a cheap horde, which I really don't like the thought of.
One unit of 160 goblins costs the same amount of unit slots as one unit of black orcs. Once your economy is up and running you wont benefit from goblins anymore.

Really they should be in units of 300+ compared to 140 dwarf warriors, not so that they can beat the dwarf warriors in combat, but so that they can perform the horde unit role against the dwarf warriors e.g. acting as a tarpit to slow their advance, or soaking up ranged fire.
As It stands, 20 extra goblins does not make it a horde.

AI behaviour is bad/good/just right!
I understand that a quest battle may have a certain amount of scripting, which has caused the bretonnian cavalry to charge at a major disadvantage, but the AI has to be able to react to what is happening and quest battle or not, attacking at such a disadvantage is inexcusable

CA have said that the cavalry forms up defensively with the rest of the army when the player attacks
or the cavalry attacks when the player chooses to defend, so to an extent the AI is reactionary and not scripted.

However CA have chosen to make the AI react in a way that will be "fun" for the player, rather than in a logical strategic way. This is where my problem lies. CA are swapping the strategy element of the game for more "fun" and it just doesn't work.

I love problem solving, that's why I chose an engineering career, its also the reason that I enjoy playing strategy games. you have to find your way around a problem by outsmarting the enemy, you have to strategize.

What I remember most fondly about previous total war games, is those moments that you somehow managed to scrape your way through and then gain the upper hand, those real close calls that had you on the edge of your seat that made you feel like you had achieved something difficult.
e.g. the truly heroic victories.

But, when the enemy AI is purposefully playing into your traps in an attempt to be fun you are not being challenged and you do not have to strategize, you don't even have to set good traps. e.g. Darren clustered his units together on a hill in full view of enemy artillery, that's a terrible trap, but it worked because the AI purposefully played into it quickly enough that they could be defeated before the trebuchets did too much damage.

Its interesting what CA have said about the quest battles "it’s worth pointing out that as a Quest Battle, this is a specifically set-up battle that offers a tailored challenge to the player, like a puzzle that needs solving with the tools you have."
They compare the quest battle to solving a puzzle(which requires strategy), but then attempt to remove the strategy element of the puzzle by making the AI react in the way that plays into your strategy.
They don't seem to understand what makes strategy so appealing to those who would buy a strategy game, what's most worrying is that year after year this seems to be happening more and more in their games.

Battles are too fast/units break too quick!
I didn't buy Attila so I don't know what the Attila battle speed feels like, however the battles are far too short in rome 2 and if it is anything similar (which it looks to be) then it will be too short again. The best solution that has been brought up many times before is to have a setting that allows the player to alter the speed to suit there own preferences.