Would you call TW Warhammer a step forward?

[Lionheart11]

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....

I do like Naval Battles but not since Fots, shogun was stupid but I do think Empire and Nappy was the best Naval battles of the series, warscape seems designed for a projectile game and not melee.

[Lugotorix]

I do like Naval Battles but not since Fots, shogun was stupid but I do think Empire and Nappy was the best Naval battles of the series, warscape seems designed for a projectile game and not melee.

They're somewhat overshadowed in Napoleon by the Campaigns of Napoleon. FotS is one title I own but have never played. Warscape works tremendously well for melee in this game, so that's a positive. I think melee was fun in Napoleon too though, and this game makes heavy use of arts. It actually reminds me of Napoleon, with all of the pressure points.

[Ciruelo]

Steps forward to implement in future historical titles:
- Performance and optimization; dx12; 64bit
- No more 1vs1 duel-based battle fights
- Collisions
- Clear differentiation between factions, as much as historical accuracy permits.
- Deep development of characters, not only a name to remember and some pointless characteristics like "Curious: -20% chance of having a child". Historical character should have historical quests, more complex skill tree where you can see a true progress.
- No more naval battles, it's just a waste of time and resources for developers. There are many good naval battle simulators that are far better that what a total war can ever expect to be.
-CAI and BAI

Things that work on Warhammer but wouldn't work on future historical titles:
- Simplistic economy and politic management
- Individual characters, heroes, etc as unit in battle.
- No family tree

Things that don't work either on Warhammer or future titles
- Dumb arcade sieges
-Battle pace too fast

[Taskeen]

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.

(...)

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.

I do believe I am very qualified to gauge this game as I see fit as a consumer. The whole idea that people can't speak about a product negatively if they have not yet 'consumed' it is very funny to me - it cracks me up actually. For example, kids these days on Steam have childish Reddit Warz to downvote any negative ratings of whatever game (I suspect grown adults are involved too). It's hilarious really, because I don't go around downvoting anyone's positive or negative outlook on a game. I'll enjoy 'a' game based on my own qualifications and rate it as I see it.

Let me offer you an analogy. Let's say you have some Food crap, it's a new thing that you believe (and are telling me so) is the best tasting thing since always, an improvement on some other recipe. However, after taking a whiff, I state that it "smells like crap dude" without even taking a bite, but you say, "No way, you can't say that until you eat it!" My brain is telling me that it will likely taste similar to how it smells to me (the Olfactory Bulb works in conjunction with taste receptors, after all). So in conclusion, people have different tastes. Zing.

And secondly, no I disagree, the Siege AI was not extremely poor in the last patched versions of those games. I know this, because I have current games playing them with a Vanilla and separate Mod version. Contrary to popular Revisionism of the Total War series, AI does in fact attack all sides as it sees fit in an attempt to surround the player. For instance, if your force is smaller and theirs larger, they'll try to thin out your defense even further, after setup, by going for multi-prong attacks. Huge AI stacks for Siege defenses in those games are hectic as all get out and very intense. I've also had battles where, after setting up all my forces on one wall, only to have the AI, after clicking 'Start' - re-evaluate and place units on multiple sides instead forcing me to run units around.

These are things I've talked about numerous other times, especially in the Rome 2 forum debacle with Sieges:

* With multi-stacks, the rest show as reinforcements and attack where-ever a breach or multiple breaches occurred.
* There are other interesting features as well, like for example in RTW, where all Siege equipment must be built and if destroyed the attacker retreats from battle (the player or the AI), but can keep the Siege going and build again (I've seen the AI, almost as if 'frustrated' like a player would be, build TWICE as much siege the next time if they fail to make one breach the first time). This makes the battles feel far more real as made-up simulation of ancient Siege.
* Also, if you repel an attack, but your walls end up breached, I've had AI give me no room for repairs by attacking yet again with fresh stacks, turning my cities into utter ruins - killing my dwindling forces until eventually I had none left.
* And of course, the often talked about 'magic ladders' of new Total War games were actual physical pieces of equipment built and appearing on the map, which could be picked up by any foot unit (In Med 2, you can re-use ladders too by dragging them to the inner-walls, I've seen AI do this as well).
* The player, nor the AI, was not given "Handicap" Siege by allowing a unit to either torch and hack their sword against a gate


So, in conclusion, no I don't see this game as worth my money still. I think it looks boring, you don't - and that's all there is to it.

[Carlucio]

I haven't played it and I'm not sure if will. The direction in which the series is going is far from what I think it should be.

[hospitaller13]

First impressions are a thousand times more postive.

And the people whining in this thread? I dont think they even bought/played the game.

It's a massive step forward.

i think you need to get a dictionary and look up the words "thousand" and "massive"

[C.Maximus]

It is a step sideways IMO. For the setting the reduction of the micromanagement does not really break it for me. HOWEVER I remember playing Third age total war for Med 2 (Pretty much the Med 2 of Fantasy based Total wars if you include mods) and I find myself missing a lot of the things that that game had and this one does not.

I love Dwarves, always had and always will since baldurs gate as a kid. Playing through as the Slayer king there are some things I heavily missed from third age total war. For one was my family tree. I almost was certain after Attila's badass family tree that Warhammer would have it. But no, all my lords are random dudes like Rome 2 but now do not even belong to families WTF?! In Third Age I had Gimli leading my military. His family ruling the Blue mountains. Balin's ruling the retaken misty mountain holds. Dain and the Oakenshields managing the holds in the Iron hills, the Lonely mountains and the distant cousins were sent to my rhun colonies where gold mines were being created. Gimli had his cousin and they had 3 large stacks heading to Mordor with the ring ready to turn it into their next mining colony. Next was to rid Middle Earth of the pesky elves....

My point is I had family based clan systems (only wish I could have had them feud some way late game) I cared about my lords and my characters. I felt like I was actually playing a Strategy RPG. The Legendary character and agent customization rpg system was cool but IMO this isnt a skyrim like rpg so when I rp an entire kingdom I want to play an entire family not just 1 hero. I kinda felt detached as often my slayer king ended up getting tied into other endeavors and I was defending my realm with nameless generic face'd guys who I could give two about...

Another feature I miss is mercenaries. I liked having a few Dale merc cav with my Dwarven army. It makes sense to be able to collect some local units as mercenaries. Would like some generic border prince cav or something even if I have to travel there to recruit them and they are available rarely.

The underground feature is nice so I am thankful for that. Just wish there was more of it, like even a second layer of the campaign map. But that is hard to ask for lol.

From TATW I do miss being able to have forts and certain areas that are not cities fortified and being able to build and fortify other regions and check points.

So being a "fantasy" setting does not really justify the lack of features because third age had all these features (4 seasons, family tree, politics, Hero or General elite body guards, marriage proposals, mercenaries....) So I do not think it is a step forward but sideways as this is their first official Fantasy release.

Though Med 2 was fun and still the best of the older games I have to give the best total war game still going to Attila (as my favorite atleast) it had the most options, functions and you actually had to put time into where you were going to expand and what you were going to build where.

[Johnadiw26]

It is a step sideways IMO. For the setting the reduction of the micromanagement does not really break it for me. HOWEVER I remember playing Third age total war for Med 2 (Pretty much the Med 2 of Fantasy based Total wars if you include mods) and I find myself missing a lot of the things that that game had and this one does not.

I love Dwarves, always had and always will since baldurs gate as a kid. Playing through as the Slayer king there are some things I heavily missed from third age total war. For one was my family tree. I almost was certain after Attila's badass family tree that Warhammer would have it. But no, all my lords are random dudes like Rome 2 but now do not even belong to families WTF?! In Third Age I had Gimli leading my military. His family ruling the Blue mountains. Balin's ruling the retaken misty mountain holds. Dain and the Oakenshields managing the holds in the Iron hills, the Lonely mountains and the distant cousins were sent to my rhun colonies where gold mines were being created. Gimli had his cousin and they had 3 large stacks heading to Mordor with the ring ready to turn it into their next mining colony. Next was to rid Middle Earth of the pesky elves....

My point is I had family based clan systems (only wish I could have had them feud some way late game) I cared about my lords and my characters. I felt like I was actually playing a Strategy RPG. The Legendary character and agent customization rpg system was cool but IMO this isnt a skyrim like rpg so when I rp an entire kingdom I want to play an entire family not just 1 hero. I kinda felt detached as often my slayer king ended up getting tied into other endeavors and I was defending my realm with nameless generic face'd guys who I could give two about...

Another feature I miss is mercenaries. I liked having a few Dale merc cav with my Dwarven army. It makes sense to be able to collect some local units as mercenaries. Would like some generic border prince cav or something even if I have to travel there to recruit them and they are available rarely.

The underground feature is nice so I am thankful for that. Just wish there was more of it, like even a second layer of the campaign map. But that is hard to ask for lol.

From TATW I do miss being able to have forts and certain areas that are not cities fortified and being able to build and fortify other regions and check points.

So being a "fantasy" setting does not really justify the lack of features because third age had all these features (4 seasons, family tree, politics, Hero or General elite body guards, marriage proposals, mercenaries....) So I do not think it is a step forward but sideways as this is their first official Fantasy release.

Though Med 2 was fun and still the best of the older games I have to give the best total war game still going to Attila (as my favorite atleast) it had the most options, functions and you actually had to put time into where you were going to expand and what you were going to build where.

May i suggest you read and research warhammer universe lore to better insight my friend, i think its not right to compare Third age mod (LOTR universe) with Total war : Warhammer (warhammer fantasy universe), because after all they are different universe, different story, different main rule. Personally to me its ridiculous if Emperor Karl Franz or Vampire Lord Count Von Castein have offspring in game but in lore they don't have offspring.

Sent from my Smartfren Andromax AD688G using Tapatalk

[Jac_PS]

Best TW game since Med2 for me, mostly because they removed everything AI couldn't cope with or use. Now the campaign finally makes sense, AI is smart and take advantages of every weaknesses.

What could be used in an historical game? Not sure, but if this is the direction I hope they stay away from history for a while. It's clear that having to follow historical settings limited CA a lot, and at the same time they never really delivered a vanilla version that was really "authentic" and accurate.

Cmom mate. Napoleon Total War in "vanilla" settings represents pretty good the time frame. France advancing towards Russia, with war with Austria and UK. I think that this game represents very well the time frame that is supposed to be. With simple mods, like UAI 2.0 and a couple of Mod made unit packs, that game is perfect for that was supposed to be .

[Vanders]

Steps forward to implement in future historical titles:
- Performance and optimization; dx12; 64bit
- No more 1vs1 duel-based battle fights
- Collisions
- Clear differentiation between factions, as much as historical accuracy permits.
- Deep development of characters, not only a name to remember and some pointless characteristics like "Curious: -20% chance of having a child". Historical character should have historical quests, more complex skill tree where you can see a true progress.
- No more naval battles, it's just a waste of time and resources for developers. There are many good naval battle simulators that are far better that what a total war can ever expect to be.
-CAI and BAI

Things that work on Warhammer but wouldn't work on future historical titles:
- Simplistic economy and politic management
- Individual characters, heroes, etc as unit in battle.
- No family tree

Things that don't work either on Warhammer or future titles
- Dumb arcade sieges
-Battle pace too fast

I'm not with you on naval warfare. It offers its own unique gameplay dimension that I enjoyed. Not that I will ever be good at naval battles mind you.

[Edocrab]

I think it's a step down in terms of content. The campaign size is half the size, maybe even less compared to Atilla/Rome 2 which makes me think that on the size alone, the game isn't worth $60 bucks. I already beat the game in a lot less than 10 hours and I don't think I'll be playing again after 1 more time until new content comes out. However, we all know they're going to be paid DLC to and CA is gonna make loads more on those as well as the next trilogy. Smart on their part in terms of money, but for us the player base, they're basically cutting us short on content vs money. Don't get me wrong, I've enjoyed the game so far and I intend to play it to the max and get the DLCs, but this part is frustrating.

[Yerevan]

Keep in mind that individual unit formation options are non-existent, groups are limited to two formations missile front/melee front, siege combat is very basic (start within range of of towers, no tiered fortresses like in MTW2). Combat reminds me more of Battle for Middle Earth than TW combat.

You mean there's no more losse/tight formation for individual units ? And this guard mode doesn't work lijke the old one ?

[Druout]

You mean there's no more losse/tight formation for individual units ? And this guard mode doesn't work lijke the old one ?

I mean that their are no individual unit tactics (other than heroes), to include loose/tight formations and that there are no army group options other than melee front/missile front. Sieges are equally horrible, with units all starting within range of towers and no tiered castles/fortresses (which is beyond me as MTW2 had this) and no city fighting at all outside of the "sieges". The only significant battle improvement is collision seems to have made a comeback. The new fantasy setting and units seem to make people forget about these significant reductions in thought required. The battles feel more like Battle for Middle Earth, but without the reflex required from a base building RTS it feels pretty simplistic.

[perifanosEllinas]

First of all, I have NOT bought the game (rewarding BS day 1 cut content paid DLCs that have been developed more than half a year before release goes against my principles) so I have not played it myself, but I have watched enough gameplays and reviews on youtube to know exactly what this game plays like. People who have been playing total war games for many years can easily tell what a total war game plays like and what it does right and wrong just by watching a few gameplays and reviews. So I will be talking from that perspective.

Do you think this game shows the direction in which future TW titles should go?

Definitely NOT. I don't think that this is the direction in which future TW titles should go. But unfortunately, I do think that this is the general direction in which future TW titles will actually go.

These are my reasons why it is not the way to go in the future:

1) Locking 1/5 of the game behind a paywall (essentially pay to play) is insulting, disrespectful and unacceptable. This practice must be eliminated for future total war games.

2) Having a dedicated cut content team developing cut content for paid DLCs during the development of the base game that will be sold at release and after release is a disgusting practice that they must also eliminate for future total war games.

3) Splitting a setting in 3 games instead of one full game is definitely NOT the way to go.

This means triple price to get the full game, triple amount of DLCs (and triple price of DLCs overall of course) and a game which comes in pieces. This is something that must be eliminated in future total war games, especially for the historical titles.

4) Being a fantasy setting doesn't justify stripping out features.

And there are A LOT of stripped features in this one.

5) No family tree.

That's definitely NOT the way to go in future titles.

6) Unmoddable campaign map is a gigantic leap backwards compared to older games of the franchise.

7) No city battles.

A whole level of strategy and tactics completely stripped out.

8) No naval battles.

Another whole level of strategy and tactics completely stripped out.

9) This game has the most dumped down sieges of the franchise, the most "one dimensional" and the most cheating ones to date.

The towers are ridiculously overpowered with a range of fire that covers the entire battlefield (which forces the player to rush everything to the walls, essentially throwing any sense of strategy and tactics out of the window and making sieges totally arcade) and they deal insanely high amount of casualties.

The towns are no longer playable from every side. Now only one side of the town is playable, so there is usually only one restricted section of wall that the entire siege is played at. This, in combination with the insanely overpowered towers make the sieges feel completely unfair (since the defender is cheating a lot), which is never fun to play.

Now all the troops that are inside of the walls magically teleport from the walls to the ground and from the ground to the walls. No ladders, no stairs, no buildings (towers or something), no gates, nothing to get the troops up or down. They just magically teleport.

Siege ladders now magically appear out of nowhere.

The AI doesn't defend the gates properly. Instead it keeps its generals and a lot of its units at reserve in the center, which results in the gates being easily captured by the player.

10) This one has the fastest battles to date.

We're talking insanely fast here, like 30 seconds to 5 minutes max usually. That's actually even faster than the totally arcade battles of Rome 2 at release. There battles used to take a minimum of 2 minutes.

11) The same old problems of the battle AI persist in this one.

The AI suicide charges its generals. It rushes them forward way ahead of the rest of the army, which results in the general getting easily killed by missiles or by totally surrounding him with elite units and generals.

The battle AI doesn't seem to know how screening units are supposed to be used and uses them as shock cavalry, which always gets these units killed.

Sometimes units ignore orders.

12) No seasons.

Definitely NOT the way to go in the future.

13) The multiplayer is as barebones as it gets.

A LOT of stripped features on that front. Even the time of day in which the battle is fought has been taken out. It doesn't get more barebones than that.

14) Diplomacy still lacks basic options which are essential for future titles:

- trade region
- surrender region
- surrender faction
- surrender army (then we should have the option to either recruit, kill, enslave, spare, or sell the troops of the surrendered army)
- get out of our lands
- accept or we will attack
- stop agent actions against our faction
- bribe army
- bribe agent
- bribe faction

etc.

15) Veteran TW players say in their reviews that the autoresolve is broken at the moment.

It can't calculate beasts and magic correctly, so the predicted outcome of the battle is totally wrong.

16) Economy is very unbalanced and overall pretty bad.

The settlements provide way reduced income now compared to older titles and this in combination with the fact that garrison units now cost upkeep completely destroys the economy of the game.

17) No mercenaries.

This might fit the Warhammer setting (I wouldn't bet on it though), but it's definitely NOT the way to go in future titles.

18) Extremely barebones unit rosters for unplayable factions.

This should NEVER happen in future titles.

19) The taxes have essentially been removed.

Now we can only select if we tax a settlement or not, that's it. No tax bar or any other interaction with the taxes.

20) The regional occupation.

A very controversial feature, some people seem to absolutely love it while others seem to absolutely hate it. Some even call it "the worst feature in a TW game ever", others say that the game is unplayable to them without the mod that removes it, just to give you a general idea of how extreme reactions this has caused to some people.

In general, my impression about this is that it makes the campaign feel very limited for a lot of people and it also makes some quests feel like they're not worth to bother with, because you would have to march a ridiculously long way to reach the quest (like 15 turns or something) in hostile territory without being able to conquer any of it, leaving your army very exposed to attacks from all enemies there, then your army would have to fight a very hard battle at the end of the march and at the same time you would leave your territory pretty open and exposed to attacks since your main army would be far away to complete the quest.

Anyway, debating whether it fits the Warhammer setting or not would be a very long discussion by itself and forming a personal opinion would require me to actually play the game first, as this feature was not included in older titles and I have no experience of playing it, so let's not do that for now.

But the point here is that it's definitely NOT the way to go in future titles, ESPECIALLY THE HISTORICAL ONES.

21) The diplomatic AI.

People say it is bad, really easy to exploit and overall feels like it's a bit worse than what we're used to so far.

22) The lazy and lame annoyance of having the same advisor for every faction persists in this title too.

This is something that definitely needs to be fixed in future titles.

23) Units have no formations.

I'm not sure if this is accurate to the Warhammer lore or not (I believe it's not, but if I'm wrong you people who have deeper knowledge of the Warhammer lore feel free to correct me) but it's definitely NOT the way to go in future titles, ESPECIALLY THE HISTORICAL ONES.

24) The campaign AI doesn't understand attrition and it seems that it's totally unaware of when its units suffer from it

...............

And I know that some of these issues can be fixed through modding, sure. But this doesn't excuse the official product having these issues in the first place.

Do you find it an improvement over previous titles?

In some areas it's an improvement indeed. However, in other areas it's a step backwards at the same time.

On one hand:

1) the factions are very well diversified from each other and they have finally included faction specific mechanics at long last, which helps A LOT (except for the advisor)

2) characters have more rpg style elements and overall deeper development and customization, which is very welcome

3) the guard mode is finally back, an obvious improvement over their recent titles (though, gameplays and reviews on youtube suggest that the AI doesn't know when it's time to use it and when not to)

4) people say that this one has the most stable performance of their recent TW games so far, that's obviously an improvement

5) we can rename units in this one

6) the 1 vs 1 combat system has been removed in this game and the game returned to the older system of battle where it was unit versus unit instead of warrior versus warrior.

Including some matching animations though and incorporating them in this system would be a great improvement overall. It's not as if they've never done this already, that's how the battles work in Medieval 2.

BUT... on the other hand:

1) the dlc whoring and BS have stepped up. It's actually the worst it's ever been in TW. Only 5 factions to play as and they lock one of them (and actually the one that they called the "big villain" of the game) behind a paywall? seriously? And their games come in 3 pieces of full price each now? This is really getting out of control here.

2) LOTS of stripped features (I mentioned them above, no point repeating them here)

3) unmoddable campaign map

4) the most dumped down and arcade sieges of the franchise

5) extremely barebones unit rosters for unplayable factions

6) broken economy

7) broken autoresolve

8) worse diplomacy (same old lack of options but at the same time slightly worse diplomatic AI, so overall worse diplomacy)

9) same old issues with battle AI

10) regional occupation makes the campaign feel very limited for a lot of people and it also makes some quests feel like they're not worth to bother with

11) insanely fast battles

Overall, it feels like for every step they make forward they also make one or two steps backwards at the same time.

What do you think can be transferred to a historical setting?

1) definitely the faction specific mechanics and the overall very good diversification of factions.

2) the more rpg style elements and overall deeper development and customization for generals

3) obviously the guard mode

4) good optimization and stable performance at release

5) renaming units

6) the battle system (but with the improvements that I mentioned above)

[Druout]

First of all, I have NOT bought the game (rewarding BS day 1 cut content paid DLCs that have been developed more than half a year before release goes against my principles) so I have not played it myself, but I have watched enough gameplays and reviews on youtube to know exactly what this games plays like. People who have been playing total war games for many years can easily tell what a total war game plays like and what it does right and wrong just by watching a few gameplays and reviews. So I will be talking from that perspective.

Most astute assessment I've seen so far regarding this.

Definitely NOT. I don't think that this is the direction in which future TW titles should go. But unfortunately, I do think that this is the general direction in which future TW titles will actually go.

These are my reasons why it is not the way to go in the future:

1) Locking 1/5 of the game behind a paywall (essentially pay to play) is insulting, disrespectful and unacceptable. This practice must be eliminated for future total war games.

2) Having a dedicated cut content team developing cut content for paid DLCs during the development of the base game that will be sold at release and after release is a disgusting practice that they must also eliminate for future total war games.

3) Splitting a setting in 3 games instead of one full game is definitely NOT the way to go.

This means triple price to get the full game, triple amount of DLCs (and triple price of DLCs overall of course) and a game which comes in pieces. This is something that must be eliminated in future total war games, especially for the historical titles.

4) Being a fantasy setting doesn't justify stripping out features.

And there are A LOT of stripped features in this one.

5) No family tree.

That's definitely NOT the way to go in future titles.

6) Unmoddable campaign map is a gigantic leap backwards compared to older games of the franchise.

7) No city battles.

A whole level of strategy and tactics completely stripped out.

8) No naval battles.

Another whole level of strategy and tactics completely stripped out.

9) This game has the most dumped down sieges of the franchise, the most "one dimensional" and the most cheating ones to date.

The towers are ridiculously overpowered with a range of fire that covers the entire battlefield (which forces the player to rush everything to the walls, essentially throwing any sense of strategy and tactics out of the window and making sieges totally arcade) and they deal insanely high amount of casualties.

The towns are no longer playable from every side. Now only one side of the town is playable, so there is usually only one restricted section of wall that the entire siege is played at. This, in combination with the insanely overpowered towers make the sieges feel completely unfair (since the defender is cheating a lot), which is never fun to play.

Now all the troops that are inside of the walls magically teleport from the walls to the ground and from the ground to the walls. No ladders, no stairs, no buildings (towers or something), no gates, nothing to get the troops up or down. They just magically teleport.

Siege ladders now magically appear out of nowhere.

The AI doesn't defend the gates properly. Instead it keeps its generals and a lot of its units at reserve in the center, which results in the gates being easily captured by the player.

10) This one has the fastest battles to date.

We're talking insanely fast here, like 30 seconds to 5 minutes max usually. That's actually even faster than the totally arcade battles of Rome 2 at release. There battles used to take a minimum of 2 minutes.

11) The same old problems of the battle AI persist in this one.

The AI suicide charges its generals. It rushes them forward way ahead of the rest of the army, which results in the general getting easily killed by missiles or by totally surrounding him with elite units and generals.

The battle AI doesn't seem to know how screening units are supposed to be used and uses them as shock cavalry, which always gets these units killed.

Sometimes units ignore orders.

12) No seasons.

Definitely NOT the way to go in the future.

13) The multiplayer is as barebones as it gets.

A LOT of stripped features on that front. Even the time of day in which the battle is fought has been taken out. It doesn't get more barebones than that.

14) Diplomacy still lacks basic options which are essential for future titles:

- trade region
- surrender region
- surrender faction
- surrender army (then we should have the option to either recruit, kill, enslave, spare, or sell the troops of the surrendered army)
- get out of our lands
- accept or we will attack
- stop agent actions against our faction
- bribe army
- bribe agent
- bribe faction

etc.

15) Veteran TW players say in their reviews that the autoresolve is broken at the moment.

It can't calculate beasts and magic correctly, so the predicted outcome of the battle is totally wrong.

16) Economy is very unbalanced and overall pretty bad.

The settlements provide way reduced income now compared to older titles and this in combination with the fact that garrison units now cost upkeep completely destroys the economy of the game.

17) No mercenaries.

This might fit the Warhammer setting (I wouldn't bet on it though), but it's definitely NOT the way to go in future titles.

18) Extremely barebones unit rosters for unplayable factions.

This should NEVER happen in future titles.

19) The taxes have essentially been removed.

Now we can only select if we tax a settlement or not, that's it. No tax bar or any other interaction with the taxes.

20) The regional occupation.

A very controversial feature, some people seem to absolutely love it while others seem to absolutely hate it. Some even call it "the worst feature in a TW game ever", others say that the game is unplayable to them without the mod that removes it, just to give you a general idea of how extreme reactions this has caused to some people.

In general, my impression about this is that it makes the campaign feel very limited for a lot of people and it also makes some quests feel like they're not worth to bother with, because you would have to march a ridiculously long way to reach the quest (like 15 turns or something) in hostile territory without being able to conquer any of it, leaving your army very exposed to attacks from all enemies there, then your army would have to fight a very hard battle at the end of the march and at the same time you would leave your territory pretty open and exposed to attacks since your main army would be far away to complete the quest.

Anyway, debating whether it fits the Warhammer setting or not would be a very long discussion by itself and forming a personal opinion would require me to actually play the game first, as this feature was not included in older titles and I have no experience of playing it, so let's not do that for now.

But the point here is that it's definitely NOT the way to go in future titles, ESPECIALLY THE HISTORICAL ONES.

21) The diplomatic AI.

People say it is bad, really easy to exploit and overall feels like it's a bit worse than what we're used to so far.

22) The lazy and lame annoyance of having the same advisor for every faction persists in this title too.

This is something that definitely needs to be fixed in future titles.

23) Units have no formations.

I'm not sure if this is accurate to the Warhammer lore or not (I believe it's not, but if I'm wrong you people who have deeper knowledge of the Warhammer lore feel free to correct me) but it's definitely NOT the way to go in future titles, ESPECIALLY THE HISTORICAL ONES.

24) The campaign AI doesn't understand attrition and it seems that it's totally unaware of when its units suffer from it

...............

And I know that some of these issues can be fixed through modding, sure. But this doesn't excuse the official product having these issues in the first place.



In some areas it's an improvement indeed. However, in other areas it's a step backwards at the same time.

On one hand:

1) the factions are very well diversified from each other and they have finally included faction specific mechanics at long last, which helps A LOT (except for the advisor)

2) characters have more rpg style elements and overall deeper development and customization, which is very welcome

3) the guard mode is finally back, an obvious improvement over their recent titles (though, gameplays and reviews on youtube suggest that the AI doesn't know when it's time to use it and when not to)

4) people say that this one has the most stable performance of their recent TW games so far, that's obviously an improvement

5) we can rename units in this one

6) the 1 vs 1 combat system has been removed in this game and the game returned to the older system of battle where it was unit versus unit instead of warrior versus warrior.

Including some matching animations though and incorporating them in this system would be a great improvement overall. It's not as if they've never done this already, that's how the battles work in Medieval 2.

BUT... on the other hand:

1) the dlc whoring and BS have stepped up. It's actually the worst it's ever been in TW. Only 5 factions to play as and they lock one of them (and actually the one that they called the "big villain" of the game) behind a paywall? seriously? And their games come in 3 pieces of full price each now? This is really getting out of control here.

2) LOTS of stripped features (I mentioned them above, no point repeating them here)

3) unmoddable campaign map

4) the most dumped down and arcade sieges of the franchise

5) extremely barebones unit rosters for unplayable factions

6) broken economy

7) broken autoresolve

8) worse diplomacy (same old lack of options but at the same time slightly worse diplomatic AI, so overall worse diplomacy)

9) same old issues with battle AI

10) regional occupation makes the campaign feel very limited for a lot of people and it also makes some quests feel like they're not worth to bother with

Overall, it feels like for every step they make forward they also make one or two steps backwards at the same time.



1) definitely the faction specific mechanics and the overall very well diversification of factions.

2) the more rpg style elements and overall deeper development and customization for generals

3) obviously the guard mode

4) good optimization and stable performance at release

5) renaming units

6) the battle system (but with the improvements that I mentioned above)

[Druout]

Sorry, just meant to reply, not quote. Anyway, most astute assessment I've seen so far, agreed on all counts.

[MannybeingManny]

TW games went to the dogs a long time ago.

[RGA]

It's the most entertaining Total war game I'v ever played since RTW (even M2TW didn't impress me that much). So yes, it's clearly a step forward. I was sceptical at first due to the fantasy settings but it turns out to be a fresh change TW games need to break away from their established formulas.

[BuffaloBuffalo]

I don't really mind the DLC. Including the trilogy in 1 game just isn't feasible. They can shove as much DLC down my throat as they want if it's good.

[BuffaloBuffalo]

In the past they still released the same amount of content in the base game but because DLC didn't exist they never got accused of stripping content.