Would you call TW Warhammer a step forward?

[Vanders]

Unfortunately, there are a lot of people with childish attitudes in this thread who seem to label any kind of criticism as whining.

It's a step forward in some areas specific to the fantasy setting, and charge impacts.

Sieges, however, need some serious work as usual. The one/two wall cities have got old quite quickly. The way units pull ladders out of their arses and warp from the walls to the ground is offputting as well.

[The Wandering Storyteller]

It's the one sided one dimensional sieges that don't allow you to access the city which is the main problem. Wait for TED.

Sent from my GT-I8200N using Tapatalk

[King Xiao]

In one aspect i miss the big cities but it was a sensible move, especially with the quality of the AI. They have never been able to get the AI to properly defend a castle/city in previous games.

Having one front and only a portion of the city allows the Ai to concentrate its forces. Whilst i would love the big siege maps, the track record of the AI suggests a smaller city was a wise move.

[Imperator Artorius]

In one aspect i miss the big cities but it was a sensible move, especially with the quality of the AI. They have never been able to get the AI to properly defend a castle/city in previous games.

Having one front and only a portion of the city allows the Ai to concentrate its forces. Whilst i would love the big siege maps, the track record of the AI suggests a smaller city was a wise move.

It would only be a wise move if it resulted in a significantly improved AI given how much is being stripped out. Now, I don't have the game and don't intend to get it at least until the entire trilogy is released and on sale, but from what I've seen (Arch Warhammer's review video, and the LPs of various other youtubers), the AI doesn't seem to be that much better aka keeping 1 unit in front of the gates no matter what, keeping too much in reserve given that the walls are extremely important to hold etc.

[Druout]

See, that's the problem with you people. You make broad, generalized, opinionated statements as if they are facts. "Limiting build slots: HUGE STEP IN THE WRONG DIRECTION!"

The wrong direction of what? What you personally like? That's great. You don't like it. Why are you still complaining about it? It's been, what, seven years? There have been more games with limited building slots than without. Your personal opinion is not objective, it is ridiculous that I have to point this out to you.

"Streamlined" has to be the buzzword most used around here. "They streamlined it! They streamlined it!"

Have you played Attila? How many parts of Attila would you say are streamlined, compared to, say, Rome? Attila has a more complex building system, a more complex recruitment system, more complex politics and diplomacy, larger battles, far, far more factions, more complex agents, vastly more complex naval battle (i.e. they exist.) Etc.

Yeah, maybe they did streamline some parts of it. Characters have less traits, right off the top of my head. But "mobile app" it is not.

Warhammer is streamlined, compared to Attila. It has a simpler building system, simpler sieges, and in general, a simpler campaign map, where you don't have to worry about climate change, or fertility, or squalor. But it also has more complex factions, with different mechanics and missions between them. It has much deeper character trees and, obviously, more in-depth battle mechanics, with magic and flying units, handgunners, cannons, etc.

Criticism of the game is one thing, there are a few things to criticize, but making such huge generalizations (Without even playing the game) is asinine and intentionally misleading. We get that you're all cranky old men who miss "The Good Ol' Days." Why don't you go make your own forum and let this one go back to being about Total War games that actually exist, instead of the ones that you've made up in your head and hate.



What? What in the world is "Tactical strategy"? Those are two different things. Do you mean it had more strategic options, or more tactical ones?

Honestly, in either case, you're going to have to give an example. Both the strategic layer and the tactical layer have far more "options" than Rome 1. Armies have stances, different factions have different mechanics that change the way they play (i.e. Vampire Counts' corruption mechanic, Dwarfs' Grudge missions.) Agents are capable of doing more things, having more skills, and being embedded in armies to actually fight on the tactical map, etc. Tactical battles are, for obvious reasons, more complex than Rome 1. Even discounting single-unit monsters, magic, and flying units, you have more unit types than Rome 1 did, and each faction plays wildly differently in battles. Vampire Counts have no ranged units at all, and depend upon a mix of garbage units to soak up the enemy damage, and hard-hitting monsters, magic, and elite knights. Dwarfs have no cavalry, and depend upon a variety of powerful artillery, ranged units, and slow, defensive infantry (though with a few powerful exceptions.)


Yeah, even today I still like Rome 1 as well, but you guys seriously need to take off your Rose-tinted glasses. Mods are the only reason the pre-warscape games were good back when they were still only a few years old, let alone today.

Lol, no. Strategic, Operational, and Tactical are different. Strategy applies broadly across all three spectrums "the art of planning and directing overall military operations and movements in a war or battle." Here's a graphical depiction to make it easy to grasp http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/3-0/fig2-1.gif. At the tactical level, i.e. the battle level there is far less in terms of options which degrades the strategy involved.

[Incontinenta Buttox]

I was as cynical as it's possible to be about this game a few months ago, I remember the disasters that were RTW2 and Empire when released. However this is a good TW game and is several steps forward.

I'll keep my opinions about the DLC whoring to myself and talk about the game itself. It's fun!

CA have done a fantastic job of capturing the spirit of the Warhammer world and bringing it to the PC screen, and they have clearly learnt many lessons from RTW2. I'm looking forward to the next instalments. Hell, I'm even looking forward to the next DLC which promises to be more than just re-skins unlike previous titles.

[EternalSilence]

Campaign: Improvement. No more negative benefits from upgrading buildings. More variety in buildings/upgrades. Atilla was just a ing chore, playing the campaign, didnt like it. To much of a hastle to get something done. I also really like the totally different gameplay mechanics / race. No more reskins of the same factions. Every faction plays differently.
Thats a BIG plus

Battle: Not an improvement: The magic is nice, but its not that 'game changing'. In v1.0 its just a click fest, its just click spamming orders around, hoping your units wont just stop in the middle of their rush (sometimes happen) and they just stand still in the midst of battle. Even when you gave then an order.

Is their a mod out yet, you will fix the battle speed and slow it down? Now my battles normally last 5-7 minutes. I even dont have the time to zoom in and look at the awesome colouring/units fighting.

I just really like the new RPG elements to making your general be a force to reckoning with during battles.
Also having agent enter the battlefield is quite nice and for the better.

I needed 24h off trial&error methode's to get this game properly running on my PC:
Intel core i5 4760
GTx 770 2GB
SSD
8gb ram.

I'm really dissapointed of the bad drivers for this game. Nvidia better make sure they have some improvements drivers.

I'll give it a Total War Warhammer v1.0: 8/10
Rome 2 v1.0 i would give a 5.5 - 6/10.

[Lugotorix]

Just finished a Long Campaign on Hard with the Greenskins. Took me 285 turns. Attila should be the standard that further Historical titles are built on. Honestly, the feature that's best built on from Attila is naming characters, traits, and characters gaining description titles from their traits. This game definitely works for it's fantasy setting, and is entertaining and fun as hell, adding a ton of Strategy to battles, but now that they have unit collision, they can work on Attila's success, which I still consider the best TW title to date. They should learn from the success of battles from this title. Also, one thing not a lot of people are mentioning are the maps. They're superior to Attila's even for the setting. The game feels different than any previous total war, the AI working between the various factions is a cluster and I love it.

[KAM 2150]

EternalSilence, check out my Proper Combat Mod, it should slow the battles to more acceptable pace.

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfile.../?id=691006940

[Incontinenta Buttox]

Just finished a Long Campaign on Hard with the Greenskins. Took me 285 turns. Attila should be the standard that further Historical titles are built on. Honestly, the feature that's best built on from Attila is naming characters, traits, and characters gaining description titles from their traits. This game definitely works for it's fantasy setting, and is entertaining and fun as hell, adding a ton of Strategy to battles, but now that they have unit collision, they can work on Attila's success, which I still consider the best TW title to date. They should learn from the success of battles from this title. Also, one thing not a lot of people are mentioning are the maps. They're superior to Attila's even for the setting. The game feels different than any previous total war, the AI working between the various factions is a cluster and I love it.

The unit collision is great, seeing filthy goblins flying through the air as my knights crash into them is a sight to behold. The only thing that beats it are when the emperor swings his hammer and another 4-5 models fly through the air. There's nothing like watching your lord throwing down the pain.

[ckangas]

Total Step Backwards. If people, in the majority, like dumbed down features in this then that 'could' (not saying definitively it will) influence CA's design for future games - which is a worrisome thought to me and just further makes me lose interest in this series; whether its these new Fantasy types or a Semi-Historical romp. They could have done so much more depth with the added Fantasy layer of Warhammer.

Rome 2, with way way worse Sieges (and plenty of other things) than the first Rome game, for many reasons already discussed on TWC, was the first area of decline. Shogun 2, its predecessor somewhat hid it, but they left out lot's of possibilities for the type of equipment that was used for Sieges in Medieval Japan - I found it fun, but dumbed down. Now it's become terminal; units with magical ladders (less need for build phase in Siege) and 1 or 2 lanes to attack a wall with no other entrances or available strategy in favor of laning the combat, and very few if any variety of the Siege battlemap itself, Town attacks are field battles (rather than both), etc.

Overall, Rome 1 and Med 2 are still the highlights of the series with them 'trying' for deeper strategy. Now its become more and more Arcade over time. I don't need to play Total Warhammer to find out of its dumbed down or not when I can see what the game is like with my own eyes in total with Youtube and Let's Plays these days.

I'm sure people will totally find ways to spin it as a positive for any further dumbing down in these series for the next Total War, that's one thing that can be counted on.

How are you qualified to gauge the complexity and difficulty of the game based solely on watching a few YouTube videos? I have 60 hours logged (I have the week off work), and am still discovering and learning new aspects.

Although RTW and MTW2 were both games I enjoyed, they were significantly easier. The combat AI in particular is significantly better in Warhammer. Although far from perfect, this is the first game where I forget I'm playing against an AI opponent (there's still the occasional battle where I can lob fireball after fireball against the opposing army, but this issue was many-fold more common in previous titles - especially RTW and MTW2).

Furthermore, the strategy and approach for each race is fundamentally different. In most TW titles I "learned" the game with one faction, and that carried over nearly completely with all others. There's no longer a single cookie-cutter approach spanning throughout all TW games. I agree that in a perfect world sieges would allow attacks on all sides. However, the siege AI in previous TW games (especially the two you mentioned) were extremely poor. A reasonable (instead of terrible) siege AI is something I'm willing to accept in return. Additionally, the fundamental approach required to be successful is different for the various races. The greenskins in particular require playing the campaign map very differently.

Perhaps you should refrain from making sweeping generalizations until you not only purchase the game, but play through the different campaigns on the various difficulties.

Is the game perfect? Not by any means. Is this the most fun and challenge I've had with a TW game since the first time I tried MTW (the original)? Yes.

[JaM]

How are you qualified to gauge the complexity and difficulty of the game based solely on watching a few YouTube videos? I have 60 hours logged (I have the week off work), and am still discovering and learning new aspects.

i'd say its relatively simple - CA did a lot of mistakes with development of R2TW.. and if I watch a video of a game that came several years later, and still contains same flawed design, it is just a pure disappointment for me. I have no intention paying them 60eur for practically same type of game as Rome 2, with same oversimplifications, and misconceptions.. i wouldn't buy it even if it cost 1eur, its just not worth of my free time anymore. its simple as that.

[Lugotorix]

The unit collision is great, seeing filthy goblins flying through the air as my knights crash into them is a sight to behold. The only thing that beats it are when the emperor swings his hammer and another 4-5 models fly through the air. There's nothing like watching your lord throwing down the pain.

I know, it's so satisfying watching your lord who you've ranked absolutely wreck superior numbers at tactical points on the battlefield, especially if it's a flying mount, combined with the effects offered by rare weapons. There's a few ways this could work in Medieval III etc. For factions with wrecking ball units like Teutonic Zweihanders, have a hero similar to the Hattori ninjas, and his cadre that can cause mayhem on the campaign map, and embed with your armies, the special forces of medieval times, with unique abilities. That's one thing they can take from this, having heroes, agents in other games, appear on the battlefield. Have the champions from Attila and Rome II apply ranked applications to the battlemap that can change the momentum of the battle entirely.

Some have said no good sieges and no good navy battles, that's like half a total war game left wanting.

You say this, having never liked a TW game with naval battles, if I'm not mistaken. Shogun II, I suppose. How often did the navies get used in that game....

[Humble Warrior]

How are you qualified to gauge the complexity and difficulty of the game based solely on watching a few YouTube videos? I have 60 hours logged (I have the week off work), and am still discovering and learning new aspects.

You underestimate a Human Being`s ability to extrapolate and come to a logical and wise conclusion if he has enough evidence to view on a subject. Especially if he`s played similar games before. It`s not hard.

Watching a utube `Let`s Play` is almost as good as playing the game itself if one wants to gauge how good\bad a game really is. The trick is to watch the `Let`s Play` of TRULY independent reviewers.

[gord96]

I really like the direction they took. Especially in adding a bit of depth to just endless conquering. Turtling for a while is now a very valid strategy to prepare for war. In past Total War games I found myself disliking peace, but in this game I find I like peace as I know how brutal war can be in this game.

[Yerevan]

64 bit is the only step forward for me since I don't like fantasy, my concern is can they be trusted to do historical after they go completely fantasy..

This and the agents fighting on the battle map. I reallu waited long to see those RPG elements giving a true dimension to general and agents. It feels a bit bitter that it happens to arrive with a fantasy TW*. Same with the guard mode coming back.

Even if TWW is a step forward R2 and Attila were 2 steps backwards, so....

* Fantasy is not really the prpblem for me, it's just that I always found the Warhammer universe a bit silly. Just a question of taste.

[Markas]

I tend to see it as a Shogun 2 release- Cut back in scope but generally a much better release. I think it has much better room for expansion and improvement than S2, though. Two more map expansions, more races, and possibly naval battles would make it a colossus (or completely ruin it, depending on whether CA's B team can hold their nerve).

[Lugotorix]

This and the agents fighting on the battle map. I reallu waited long to see those RPG elements giving a true dimension to general and agents. It feels a bit bitter that it happens to arrive with a fantasy TW*. Same with the guard mode coming back.

Even if TWW is a step forward R2 and Attila were 2 steps backwards, so....

* Fantasy is not really the prpblem for me, it's just that I always found the Warhammer universe a bit silly. Just a question of taste.

Attila is the most advanced TW yet.

[Noif de Bodemloze]

One of the biggest step forward was "64-bit engine game" and overall this game is solid step forward. I hope CA won't screw up next historical title.

[stevehoos]

See, that's the problem with you people. You make broad, generalized, opinionated statements as if they are facts. "Limiting build slots: HUGE STEP IN THE WRONG DIRECTION!"



Have you played Attila? How many parts of Attila would you say are streamlined, compared to, say, Rome? Attila has a more complex building system, a more complex recruitment system, more complex politics and diplomacy, larger battles, more complex agents....

What's amusing is half of your list above are subjective viewpoints! You go on to talk about broad generalizations and opinionated statements but then base most of your response on those premises. Then you attack the use of the word "streamlined" as if it's a propagandized buzz word used by those who have "problems." Those who have "problems" LOL!

So Attila has an in depth building system, how so exactly? Should I build a goat farm or till the fields, I am going to need a well here (in every town) because my sanitation level is -2; oh man the endless choices! What will I build with my 4 choices? I think we disagree on what the word "complex" means. I hate to break it to you, but the phrase "limited building slots" is not an opinion, it is a fact about Attila compared to older titles.

The recruitment system in Attila is more complex, how exactly? By mid game many lower tier units are no longer available making army composition bland and un-diversified. Late game one has armies of all top tier units, that equates complexity?