Would you call TW Warhammer a step forward?

[Druout]

They removed everything AI can't handle, leaving a dull and boring game.
Most turns I just move units because nothing else to do on campaign map.

Indeed, most disappointing in the series for me personally.

[Markas]

Instead of making siege battles for small cities more interesting, thoughtful and make several city patterns, they just remove them... BUT LOOK AT THE HELLCANON OMGZ SO AWESOMEEEEE I HAVE TO PRE ORDER!!! *plays the game 3 hours *

What? No they didn't. Small cities just don't have them to begin with so there are less siege battles.

[Humble Warrior]

To me it is a giant confirmation that CA is moving away from trying to create a plausible, realistic (within limits) battle simulator and moving more towards a battle-area type of game, where formations and manoeuvring is not as important as unit combos and the timing of special abilities, spells and use of special gimmick units. Two more titles like this and the studio won't recover, Rome 2 and to an extent Shogun 2 were already a step down this path but a 3-part Warhammer is the nail in the coffin in my opinion. I don't think we'll see anything of the likes of RTW (the unit physics more so than the uniforms), M2TW or Empire/Napoleon again, those games had a semblance of restraint and attempted to emulate historical warfare, for their time they were great achievements, especially the further back you go.

Well said and agreed. MTW2 and its earlier games will be seen as the best of a golden era where CA actually tried to make an immersive yet strategic and tactical game that reflected reality and brought you into history, like a Time machine.

Now it all sucks.

[Huberto]

To me it is a giant confirmation that CA is moving away from trying to create a plausible, realistic (within limits) battle simulator and moving more towards a battle-area type of game, where formations and manoeuvring is not as important as unit combos and the timing of special abilities, spells and use of special gimmick units. Two more titles like this and the studio won't recover, Rome 2 and to an extent Shogun 2 were already a step down this path but a 3-part Warhammer is the nail in the coffin in my opinion. I don't think we'll see anything of the likes of RTW (the unit physics more so than the uniforms), M2TW or Empire/Napoleon again, those games had a semblance of restraint and attempted to emulate historical warfare, for their time they were great achievements, especially the further back you go.

Have you tried Age of Charlemagne? It's good and harkens back somewhat to the older titles, it has a more realistic feeling, although the CAI leaves a bit to be desired, as in TWR2 and ATW (base game).

I share your concerns but I feel like the plausible, realistic and authentic isn't totally dead yet, we are still a faction that matters to CA and there are people at CA who share our interests, and will either continue to make games we like or will let us mod them more to our liking. I see Warhammer as an extreme in the opposite direction, but not something that is representative of the kind of historical game they want to make. I could be wrong though.

[nameless]

Have you tried Age of Charlemagne? It's good and harkens back somewhat to the older titles, it has a more realistic feeling, although the CAI leaves a bit to be desired, as in TWR2 and ATW (base game).

I share your concerns but I feel like the plausible, realistic and authentic isn't totally dead yet, we are still a faction that matters to CA and there are people at CA who share our interests, and will either continue to make games we like or will let us mod them more to our liking. I see Warhammer as an extreme in the opposite direction, but not something that is representative of the kind of historical game they want to make. I could be wrong though.

Can you show me where it stated that CA no longer is making historical titles?

Cause last I remember when they had announced Warhammer people had asked and they said this is a separate division that's working on it just like Total War Arena.

They are simply expanding their cliente and new things.

[Markas]

Well said and agreed. MTW2 and its earlier games will be seen as the best of a golden era where CA actually tried to make an immersive yet strategic and tactical game that reflected reality and brought you into history, like a Time machine.

Now it all sucks.

You mean Med 2 that in no way represented Feudalism or how armies were composed and organised? The Med 2 that was so broken on release that charges didn't work properly, two-handed weapons were bugged, Sieges that allowed you to beat 20 unit stacks with two units, bizarre ahistorical units, and battles were the enemy army stood still whilst you killed them to a man with arrows and marched it's armies all over your regions and there was no repercussions? the Med 2 that was pretty much devoid of any challenge?

'Like a Time Machine' if you've never read a history book maybe. What you mean surely was it was great fun, which is fine, but your other assertions are a fantasy.

[Bigbossbalrog]

Well said and agreed. MTW2 and its earlier games will be seen as the best of a golden era where CA actually tried to make an immersive yet strategic and tactical game that reflected reality and brought you into history, like a Time machine.

Now it all sucks.

This is the biggest, most mind boggling, complaint i've ever heard on this forum. That's a huge accomplishment.

You can keep your flaming pigs, Roman Ninjas, Cannon mounted elephants, Pajima wearing partharians, and fricken Biblic Egyptians.

Because Rome 2 and Attila are a thousand times more historically accurate then vanilla medieval 2, and Rome. Warhammer isn't supposed to be realistic. And yet all of it's units seem way more plausible then the other fantasy units in historically Total War because they make sense in context..

[Person012345]

I do not think it's a "step forward". It's alright. It's an OK game. Hopefully it'll be good once they patch it or mods come along to fix some of the issues. That's not to say it doesn't take any steps forward, but it does also either take steps back or continue to stand in the same place the other recent games have, to the point I can't call it a general step forward.

Ditch the engine, build a new one from the ground up, build it to handle larger unit sizes, stop trying to make your battles over in 2 minutes, fix your AI and start adding sensible interesting mechanics. When they start doing this, that is the game that will be a step forward, for me.

[M2TWRocks]

You mean Med 2 that in no way represented Feudalism or how armies were composed and organised? The Med 2 that was so broken on release that charges didn't work properly, two-handed weapons were bugged, Sieges that allowed you to beat 20 unit stacks with two units, bizarre ahistorical units, and battles were the enemy army stood still whilst you killed them to a man with arrows and marched it's armies all over your regions and there was no repercussions? the Med 2 that was pretty much devoid of any challenge?

'Like a Time Machine' if you've never read a history book maybe. What you mean surely was it was great fun, which is fine, but your other assertions are a fantasy.

This argument that Total War game X (usually the title 2-3 games earlier) is the "best" or "most realistic" or "when CA really cared about their fanbase" has been around on these forums and previously on totalwar.org since the very first expansion pack for the original STW. M2TW was a mess on release. As you mentioned, many mechanics didn't work right. There were fantasy units, agents that were probably the absolute worst micromanagement nightmare since the original total war, naval invasions didn't exist, 2-handers didn't work, and shields didn't work. Not to mention the AI was pretty much retarded and still did the whole RTW thing where they would send stack after stack of 1-2 unit armies towards your lands.

No, the total war games aren't devolving, and no, there wasn't some golden age with perfect total war games. They all had their flaws and most didn't accurately represent history. But they were fun games that were representative of the trends in gaming when they came out. Would I trade the current Warhammer Total War for another game very similar to M2TW? No. There's just too many things that have been improved, added, and upgraded. (People conveniently divert away from talking about the improvements that have come with the current titles like researching technologies and true rpg type elements like hero leveling.)

Warhammer breathes some new life into a genre that has been getting stale for years now. If I had to line up another row of spearmen to fight a similar looking row of spearmen again, on yet another map of the Mediterranean, with a ridiculously long set of campaign objectives, I'd be bored to tears. Hopefully CA will take some of the elements of Warhammer and put them into a historical game. I'd love to level up a general to lead my armies in a similar way to Warhammer. I have no idea which direction CA will take their games. But I can guarantee you these same people will be saying the same thing years from now. Except they'll probably be saying the "pinnacle" of TW games was Warhammer.

[Druout]

I do not think it's a "step forward". It's alright. It's an OK game. Hopefully it'll be good once they patch it or mods come along to fix some of the issues. That's not to say it doesn't take any steps forward, but it does also either take steps back or continue to stand in the same place the other recent games have, to the point I can't call it a general step forward.

Ditch the engine, build a new one from the ground up, build it to handle larger unit sizes, stop trying to make your battles over in 2 minutes, fix your AI and start adding sensible interesting mechanics. When they start doing this, that is the game that will be a step forward, for me.

But my concern is that the cash cow created by stripping tactical depth from the battles and sieges (instant gratification, minimal thought required) will be latched on to by CA as a money maker that attracts a more casual (and larger) crowd. This would be less of an issue if the game engines were as malleable as MTW2, but unless I'm mistaken, nothing like the great overhaul mods for Rome 1 and MTW2 has been produced from the warscape era engine release onward.

[Osbot]

So what you want is a dumber game then with more limited options? The sieges are awful and the worst in the series bar none; sieges throughout history require planning, to include deployment considerations (hint; doesn't mean two walls only and starting with all your troops in missile range). They didn't fix sieges they just dumbed them down to appeal to the casual crowd rather than improving on them,. Same deal in terms of tactical strategy in general for this game. As to fords; Cowan's Ford, Xiaoyao Ford, Kelly's Ford, etc. plenty of examples where commanders fought at fords. This isn't back to basics, this is back to the lowest common denominator to ensure mass casual appeal with minimal grey cell activity required.

Of course there are examples of ford crossings throughout history, but they are rare enough that having them physically represented in the game? Honestly who cares.

Total War games have never been deep, strategic games, they have ALWAYS been very shallow strategy games with a vaguely realistic tactical layer. I'm afraid what you want, is a game that has never existed. You want something that is more simulation, and total war has never been a simulation.

The sieges are the best in the entire series, bar none. Rome 1, AI could barely function. Medieval 2, AI DIDN'T function. Empire, there were sieges? Napoleon, there were sieges? Shogun, AI could barely function. Rome 2, almost as bad as Medieval 2. Attila, back to about Shogun 2 levels, but still the AI could barely function. Warhammer, hey, the biggest problem with sieges is fixed, the AI doesn't have 2 units here, 2 units there, and the inability to deal with any attack NOT at a gate. I get that you want the freedom to put your army on any side of the city that you want, but the AI couldn't deal with it. AI is still just scripts and weighted decisions, it hasn't been able to deal with the variables of a siege, EVER.

My post has nothing to do with wanting less options, of course I want more options, my post was about the quality of gameplay, and refining what they do well, and working around what they do poorly.

In life, you play to your strengths and minimize your weaknesses. That is what this game represents. I've played every game in the series, and aside from the wow factor of Shogun 1, a feeling that no game in the series will ever re-capture for me, this is the best game, GAME being the crucial element, in the entire series.

[Smiling Hetairoi]

To me it is a giant confirmation that CA is moving away from trying to create a plausible, realistic (within limits) battle simulator and moving more towards a battle-area type of game, where formations and manoeuvring is not as important as unit combos and the timing of special abilities, spells and use of special gimmick units. Two more titles like this and the studio won't recover, Rome 2 and to an extent Shogun 2 were already a step down this path but a 3-part Warhammer is the nail in the coffin in my opinion. I don't think we'll see anything of the likes of RTW (the unit physics more so than the uniforms), M2TW or Empire/Napoleon again, those games had a semblance of restraint and attempted to emulate historical warfare, for their time they were great achievements, especially the further back you go.

Total War has never been a realistic battle simulator. Battles in Rome 1 and Medieval 2 were just as "ARCADEY" and "CASUAL" as the newer games. Stop making Total War it isn't and take of your nostalgia glasses. You sound like an idiotic hipster whom has never played the series.

[Osbot]

But my concern is that the cash cow created by stripping tactical depth from the battles and sieges (instant gratification, minimal thought required) will be latched on to by CA as a money maker that attracts a more casual (and larger) crowd. This would be less of an issue if the game engines were as malleable as MTW2, but unless I'm mistaken, nothing like the great overhaul mods for Rome 1 and MTW2 has been produced from the warscape era engine release onward.

Please don't equate "tactical" with slow.


What are tactics in Total War games? The most commonly used tactics are envelopment. Guess what, the most effective tactic in Warhammer is envelopment. Tactical doesn't mean slow.

[Osbot]

What back to basic approach dude? What are you even talking about? Have you played Shogun 1 and Medieval 1?

Now I've heard a nice comment from someone on these forums. What is left in this game when you click autoresolve for battles? How interesting and enjoyable is what's left after that?

Yep, I've played both. I bought them both from brick and mortar shops the day they were available.

I'm guessing english isn't your first language, because I honestly struggled to get any meaning, or point from your post. So I am sorry that I am unable to really understand what the point of your post was beyond asking me if I had played the originals.

I was a very active poster on the .org before it died and became a cesspool of people whining about the good old days. My original account here was from when Rome launched, I've since lost the information. I was very active in the modding forum, and testing balance at release for both Rome 1 and Medieval 2. I may have in fact been the first person on these forums to discover that the 2h attack animation in Medieval was broken after I ran extensive tests regarding Jannisaries.

[Bulk]

Oh my apologies to you buddy. You don't have several thousands posts on this forum and a high title like "Casesarus Augustus bla bla"". I thought you were a common peasant just like me.

I'm not a history nerd mind you and I don't think earlier TW games were golden or some stuff like that. I think CA has changed, their paradigm has changed. They are no longer the company they used to be. And this is carried over into the games they make and how they make them. If you are comfortable with that that's ok. You can just sit back and enjoy anything they make. Like "an arm chair general given the opportunity to command soldiers". But there are some people who are not happy. You can't blame them for voicing their concerns.

[stevehoos]

Because Rome 2 and Attila are a thousand times more historically accurate then vanilla medieval 2, and Rome.

Really? Auto collapsing towers, teleporting generals, armies only can move with a general, ubiquitous female warriors, build 6 buildings in Constantinople, hack city gates down with axes, sea going Mongols; shall I continue? I think you must equate graphics with realism. A laughable argument.

[M2TWRocks]

Really? Auto collapsing towers, teleporting generals, armies only can move with a general, ubiquitous female warriors, build 6 buildings in Constantinople, hack city gates down with axes, sea going Mongols; shall I continue? I think you must equate graphics with realism. A laughable argument.

Yeah, what happened with those towers? That was such a weird design choice. Ubiquitous female warriors. Indeed! You forgot to add that the celtic females were obviously modeled to look identical to a Disney movie.

[johnny_b_good]

Ofc not. Samo old clunky engine. Time for something new.

[Lugotorix]

Have you tried Age of Charlemagne? It's good and harkens back somewhat to the older titles, it has a more realistic feeling, although the CAI leaves a bit to be desired, as in TWR2 and ATW (base game).

I share your concerns but I feel like the plausible, realistic and authentic isn't totally dead yet, we are still a faction that matters to CA and there are people at CA who share our interests, and will either continue to make games we like or will let us mod them more to our liking. I see Warhammer as an extreme in the opposite direction, but not something that is representative of the kind of historical game they want to make. I could be wrong though.

You're not alone in thinking that. It's not representative of the next historical title at all. That's my opinion, but it's also a conviction I'd bet on. Warhammer, and it's two sequels are Warhammer, that's all.

[Fanest]

Really? Auto collapsing towers, teleporting generals, armies only can move with a general, ubiquitous female warriors, build 6 buildings in Constantinople, hack city gates down with axes, sea going Mongols; shall I continue? I think you must equate graphics with realism. A laughable argument.

You have some laughable arguments as well, considering that provinces (not regions) are equal to old mtw2 provinces you can build about the same amount of unique buildings in Attila provinces as in MTW2 provinces. Even though i dont like this system very much it does make some settlements more unique, since in MTW2 build order was the same for every province (specially later on when ur flowing in money).

Generals take one turn to reassign - but i think u know the reason behind this general/army limitation - everybody was fed up with fighting 1-3 unit armies all the time.

No Mongols in Attila nor RTW2. Huns on the other hand dont have ships - when they are on the sea they use only transports.

But i wont dive into the flaws of MTW2 or RTW1 this is not the topic for it, and i also think u know them well enough, if not just juggle your memory a bit.