Total War: WARHAMMER officially confirmed!

[Lord Baal]

Well 40K could work as a Total War game. A heavily modified version, with battles more along the lines of Company of Heros (but with much, much more troops).

[vef215]

Battle music at 9:29 anyone? Thoughts?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lygc...lPavelO.Khorev

[vef215]

Well 40K could work as a Total War game. A heavily modified version, with battles more along the lines of Company of Heros (but with much, much more troops).

You mean Dawn of War?

[Lord Baal]

Not quite. For one, there was no cover use beyond a very basic form in Dwan of War. Dawn of War 2 would be more appropriated, however it lack the scale. Also no troop recruitment in the middle of the battlefield, you move your regiments/cradles/companies/sects/mobs around and do battle with what they have. Only recruiting in the strat map.

[Påsan]

There is cover in dawn of war 2. and its essential in multiplayer. But the scale of Dow2 roughly compares to a 1500 points tabletop game.

[Lord Baal]

Perhaps, but not an Armagedon game, which would be more appropriated as a TW game.

[Son of Horus]

If there is any sort of Total War 40K style game that could do with channeling, it's the Wargame series (Airland Battle, or Red Dragon if you want to include bugs).

For those who haven't played it, it's an extremely zoomed out map (to the tune of tens of kilometers) where your "objectives" are essentially locations which you can capture through "Command" assets. Once captured, these buildings generate points, which you can use to bring on your assets mid game; but you have a finite number of assets which you build with your "deck" before battle. The Campaign mode is essentially just shifting round those decks on a "Campaign map" style that TW players are used to into the different territories, and then initiating the battle, which allows you to place a number of assets at the start of the battle, which you can use for pushes into the battle map territories - increasing the amount of resources available to the player on the campaign map, with which they can reinforce their decks.

Considering that the scale of Warhammer ranges from small scale boarding operations like investigating a Space Hulk with Terminators up to huge scale battles like the battle for Macragge, or Armageddon, but with things like the latter being the mainstay of 40K, I think that Wargame series would be able to do a better take on it, than a TW style game.

[englisharcher89]

If there is any sort of Total War 40K style game that could do with channeling, it's the Wargame series (Airland Battle, or Red Dragon if you want to include bugs). For those who haven't played it, it's an extremely zoomed out map (to the tune of tens of kilometers) where your "objectives" are essentially locations which you can capture through "Command" assets. Once captured, these buildings generate points, which you can use to bring on your assets mid game; but you have a finite number of assets which you build with your "deck" before battle. The Campaign mode is essentially just shifting round those decks on a "Campaign map" style that TW players are used to into the different territories, and then initiating the battle, which allows you to place a number of assets at the start of the battle, which you can use for pushes into the battle map territories - increasing the amount of resources available to the player on the campaign map, with which they can reinforce their decks.Considering that the scale of Warhammer ranges from small scale boarding operations like investigating a Space Hulk with Terminators up to huge scale battles like the battle for Macragge, or Armageddon, but with things like the latter being the mainstay of 40K, I think that Wargame series would be able to do a better take on it, than a TW style game.

Oh yeah I've played a lot of Wargame:EE and Airland Battle, great game, such a shame that Red Dragon is unbalanced and way worse than Airland Battle. But anyway 40k style game would be good using this engine. As for Fantasy Battle, only TW game.. ever since I got into WH, at around Medieval I I always imagined this as TW, Mark of Chaos was so-so, good concept, but game was not large enough.

[Lord Baal]

Mark of Chaos had no good sense of scale, and details like the empire gunners firing as quickly as archers like they had Winchesters turned me off right away.

[ponasozis]

only thing that could represent warhammer 40k on scale in ground combat

its you guessed it
supreme commander


take supreme commander idea
make wh 40k
????
$$$$ profit $$$$


also guys warhammer 40k chess with grenades is coming out
i am not sure how i feel about this

[lampros69]

Where are all the people saying it wouldn't happen? Haha, love seeing conservative users being proven wrong

It would have been foolish to claim so as soon as CA purchased the rights to WFB.

[HigoChumbo]

It would have been foolish to claim so as soon as CA purchased the rights to WFB.

The thing is there was a truckload of people who were saying that there was no way it was going to be a TW game.

[Yayattasa]

It would have been foolish to claim so as soon as CA purchased the rights to WFB.

Then at least a dozen so proclaimed veterans around here are fools.

[Evan MF]

I think it was rather the case of people expressing disbelief that CA even could create a good WH game.

[HigoChumbo]

I think it was rather the case of people expressing disbelief that CA even could create a good WH game.

Not really, most people here think that. The issue with them was that they did not want a non-historical, fantasy game about Warhammer to bear the name "Total War".

[Glabro]

As a historical (and Warhammer) tabletop miniatures gamer, it baffles me how close-minded and immature some of the so-called "historical gamers" on this topic are. Many of them are trolls or children, however Total War has hardly been, in my mind, a hallmark of historical accuracy gameplay wise - the campaign and battle elements are quite "fantastical" and ahistorical.

Warhammer and TW seem like a perfect marriage to me, and this coming from someone who has equal or even more passion for historical battles as Warhammer ones. I'm sure once all is said and done, the majority of TW gamers will enjoy it, and many new ones besides.

[irneh]

We have to hope the CA will not give-up in front of all these guy who don't want a total war warhammer.

[Brigadier General Kautz]

We have to hope the CA will not give-up in front of all these guy who don't want a total war warhammer.

As a huge history nerd and a Total War fan since Shogun Total War, this announcement makes me sad. I have no problem with fantasy games, but Total War was always my favorite historical games because of the relative realism and scale of the battles. If they open up a second development team for this then thats fantastic. My only problem with it is that I fear this will take the slot of another great historical game in a period that they haven't covered yet, like the 19th century. I really want to see a 19th century total war game from 1840-1914 set on a global map. Crimean War, Franco-Prussian War, American Civil War etc. If warhammer really is their next game then a 19th century game could be half a decade away :/.

[Syrio_Forel]

So now that attilla is released.... Hmm now it's Total War: Warhammer time !!????????????

[Himster]

As a huge history nerd and a Total War fan since Shogun Total War, this announcement makes me sad. I have no problem with fantasy games, but Total War was always my favorite historical games because of the relative realism and scale of the battles. If they open up a second development team for this then thats fantastic. My only problem with it is that I fear this will take the slot of another great historical game in a period that they haven't covered yet, like the 19th century. I really want to see a 19th century total war game from 1840-1914 set on a global map. Crimean War, Franco-Prussian War, American Civil War etc. If warhammer really is their next game then a 19th century game could be half a decade away :/.

Well if you consider Warhammer as an experiment, it offers the ideal playground for testing flying units (think blimps, bi-planes etc.) and there are steam-tanks in warhammer too. It's quite clear that a certain repertoire will necessarily be developed for Warhammer that will lend itself to historical periods for future installments, with the added bonus of freedom to experiment a bit more than would otherwise be possible. It really is the ideal situation no matter which aspect of Total War one prefers. To jump straight into a modern period global Total War title we'd just get another Empire Total War and nobody wants that again.

A good 19th century game is at least half a decade away, no matter how you look at it. A crappy 19th century game could be made in 1-2 years, but why bother. Good games take time and Warhammer offers the ideal playground to apply the repertoire that Total War has already developed and the ideal playground to experiment with the new ideas that we all want. It's win win win win win win win for everybody. Of course diplomacy/politics will not see improvement with Warhammer, but that's it: Total War should be about war and there is no setting more perfect for that than Warhammer. For diplomacy and politics one should play paradox games.