Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

New Total War game: Warhammer

Lone Wolf

Arcane
Vatnik
Joined
Apr 17, 2014
Messages
3,703
For the record, I don't think it's dumbed down. The emphasis of depth has shifted - lots more customization of leader characters, much deeper rock/paper/scissors system, magic, unique playstyles for the different factions etc. They've made sieges simpler for the AI, which is fine (unlike some, I don't recall Rome or Medieval 2 siege AI fondly, when it had to deal with four walls). Ditto with the taxation stuff; you think you'll miss it until you just don't.

This is one of CA's best products, in my opinion.
 

MoLAoS

Guest
For the record, I don't think it's dumbed down. The emphasis of depth has shifted - lots more customization of leader characters, much deeper rock/paper/scissors system, magic, unique playstyles for the different factions etc. They've made sieges simpler for the AI, which is fine (unlike some, I don't recall Rome or Medieval 2 siege AI fondly, when it had to deal with four walls). Ditto with the taxation stuff; you think you'll miss it until you just don't.

This is one of CA's best products, in my opinion.
Considering your other shitty opinions that's not shocking. Game is clearly dumbed down. Granted TW was always dumbed down outside the combat.
 

Blaine

Cis-Het Oppressor
Patron
Joined
Oct 6, 2012
Messages
1,874,662
Location
Roanoke, VA
Grab the Codex by the pussy
Game is clearly dumbed down. Granted TW was always dumbed down outside the combat.

Dumbed down in what way? You're referring to the lack of a tax slider, governors, family tree, sanitation, food production, provincial improvements (roads and so on), that sort of thing?

So, you admit that TW was "always dumbed down outside the combat," are mad that the campaign has been dumbed down further, but refuse to give the game any credit for new features or for the combat—which arguably is well done, diverse, and enjoyable, while the AI and collisions are substantially and very noticeably improved. Hell, so is the performance. Those were actually the big three complaints about recent TW games: AI's dumb, collisions suck, performance is shit.

Presumably the reason they altered sieges was to make them easier for the AI to handle properly, and I think that's an understandable choice. If the more elaborate, open siege maps were still in, people would be bitching about the retarded AI instead. It's a lot easier to redesign a map and tweak some mechanics than to redesign the AI, and there's a limit to what game AIs can be made capable of.

Sounds to me like you're the one with shitty opinions. It's a shame those additional details are missing from the campaign (although the absence of some is clearly appropriate for a Warhammer game), especially the tax slider, but most were no more than braindead fluff to begin with. Many of them were just mindless button-clicks, only managed very occasionally, or else were dead easy to manage.

You think that managing shitters and the option to marry your daughter to some asshole to get +1 diplomatic relations is more important than focusing on magic spells, monsters, flying units, magic armor and swords and shit in a Warhammer game? Come on, man.
 
Last edited:

hivemind

Guest
Combat has also suffered from over simplification. Gone are your unit formations (you only have two, misssle front, missle rear). Combat is also incredibly fast. It may be nitpicky, but I really liked zooming in on close combat and watching the models kick the tar out of each other in amusing ways. Now, units are destroyed and flee at such a pace as it makes enjoying the scene practically impossible. Elsewhere it has been mentioned that there is some sort of mechanic that buffs armies that have greater numbers than their foes. In the days of yore, a well thought out defense, making use of terrain, unit strengths, and cover meant you could outwit and defeat a much larger and better equipped force, or at least bloody their noses enough to slow them down. Now, if you are outnumbered, the battles are incredibly lopsided, no matter what you do. This mechanic plays in your favor as well. A small AI force can be routed almost instantly, and you will take minimal casualties. One final mention on battles, ranged weapons and artillery are DEVASTATINGLY accurate. Not only are they accurate, but they are an absolute menace, to you or the AI. Artillery can wipe out entire units long before they ever engage, and fire with accuracy that would make an olympic marksman green at the gills, regardles of cover.

- Attacking villages just results in a field battle because they couldn't be bothered to model villages
- Units don't have animations for unnecessary things like reloading
 

Blaine

Cis-Het Oppressor
Patron
Joined
Oct 6, 2012
Messages
1,874,662
Location
Roanoke, VA
Grab the Codex by the pussy
Who the fuck uses predefined formations? I never used that trash, and neither does any other serious player, which might be why they didn't bother. Also, the "outnumbered debuff" may be apocryphal. If not, there'll be a mod for it toot sweet. Should be real simple to fix.

Combat is absolutely too fast though, I readily agree, and I do wish there were more trees and hills. They seem a bit sparser than in Shogun 2.

I think you may be right that ranged units are bit too accurate, now. Certainly, village models would be nice, but that can very easily be fixed by someone. It doesn't bother me because I prefer open-field battles anyway.

I really don't understand the complaints about no animations for unnecessary things. If there's anything to not waste development man-hours on so that they're free to work on other things instead, that might be one of the first things I pick. It's pure eye candy. Every race has many different units with totally different wireframe models and animations than all the others, so I think it's 100% understandable that they'd cut something like that.
 
Joined
Nov 15, 2009
Messages
2,815
Location
Third Reich from the Sun
Regarding sieges in M2 and Rome, the AI basically never did multiple side assaults in those games. Only exception when it had reinforcing stacks and those stacks had siege artillery. Otherwise they would just run around to join the main force.
 

Blaine

Cis-Het Oppressor
Patron
Joined
Oct 6, 2012
Messages
1,874,662
Location
Roanoke, VA
Grab the Codex by the pussy
One feature that needs to be added, in my opinion, is progressively more speed on the campaign map for progressively smaller armies, and more options for small forces to escape larger ones. This is not only realistic historically speaking, but would allow for more choice and versatility in gameplay. One unit of cavalry could "scout" without taking up an agent slot, for example, and small forces could raid minor settlements and engage with other smaller forces. As it is, by midgame, if you're not fielding a doomstack, you're vulnerable.

Mainly I'd like to see this because I also enjoy smaller-sized battles. They're simpler in a way, but much more punishing or rewarding of bad or good decision-making, unit composition, and formations.
 

hivemind

Guest
and neither does any other serious player
oDCku2OIub5lDuf7fCdTkg-wide.jpg
 

Lone Wolf

Arcane
Vatnik
Joined
Apr 17, 2014
Messages
3,703
Considering your other shitty opinions that's not shocking. Game is clearly dumbed down. Granted TW was always dumbed down outside the combat.

You calling my opinions shitty is no insult at all, considering the drivel you deliver with depressing regularity.

Let me know when you finish your magnum opus. I'm looking forward to seeing what a 'everything-is-shit' advocate unleashes upon an unsuspecting, innocent world.
 

Blaine

Cis-Het Oppressor
Patron
Joined
Oct 6, 2012
Messages
1,874,662
Location
Roanoke, VA
Grab the Codex by the pussy
and neither does any other serious player
oDCku2OIub5lDuf7fCdTkg-wide.jpg

Simmer down that sass. I don't need to be enlightened by my own intelligence to know that predefined formations are shit.

Anyway, I think part of the reason battles are faster now than they were in previous Warscape engine games is because the synced one-on-one combat animations that everyone hated for obvious reasons have been done away with, which is very, very good.
 

Steve

Augur
Joined
Aug 25, 2011
Messages
359
For the record, I don't think it's dumbed down. The emphasis of depth has shifted - lots more customization of leader characters, much deeper rock/paper/scissors system, magic, unique playstyles for the different factions etc. They've made sieges simpler for the AI, which is fine (unlike some, I don't recall Rome or Medieval 2 siege AI fondly, when it had to deal with four walls). Ditto with the taxation stuff; you think you'll miss it until you just don't.

This is one of CA's best products, in my opinion.
Considering your other shitty opinions that's not shocking. Game is clearly dumbed down. Granted TW was always dumbed down outside the combat.

I don't think it's dumbed down either, it's just streamlined in a good way. The campaign map has always served no other purpose than to make the player to care about the outcome of the battles, nobody ever has played a total war game for the empire management. There's just a lot less fiddling around (There still could be more) and I found my campaign going a lot faster than in any other TW game.

AI also seems to be able to build proper armies this time, a lot less of those annoying 4-5 unit forces, however the AI doesn't seem to be able to handle corruption at all. They pretty much ignore it and take huge attrition.

I liked how when Archaon finally came, everybody made a non-aggression pact and started fighting the common foe, I wonder how much of it was scripted but it brought some nice flavor. After the chaos forces were defeated there was a nice silent period where everybody just rebuilt the ruined provinces, pretty much the entire Empire area was gone and was split between Bretonnia and me (Vampire counts)
 
Last edited:

BlackAdderBG

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Apr 24, 2012
Messages
3,045
Location
Little Vienna
Codex 2013 Codex 2014 PC RPG Website of the Year, 2015 Codex 2016 - The Age of Grimoire Grab the Codex by the pussy Codex USB, 2014 Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire Pathfinder: Kingmaker
Regarding sieges in M2 and Rome, the AI basically never did multiple side assaults in those games. Only exception when it had reinforcing stacks and those stacks had siege artillery. Otherwise they would just run around to join the main force.

And thank god it didn't split forces in sieges in M2,as seen in Shogun 2 it was super easy to beat even with 1 to 3 superiority as long you had decent troops(i.e. not ashigaru) to beat them piece by piece while 2 units block the gates/walls.In Medieval2 the big problem always was bugging AI just doing nothing.But if they attack it's harder to defend against evenly matched forces without good heavy cavalry.

The campaign map has always served no other purpose than to make the player to care about the outcome of the battles, nobody ever has played a total war game for the empire management. There's just a lot less fiddling around (There still could be more) and I found my campaign going a lot faster than in any other TW game.

Are you saying battles actually matter?Like you don't have to rush conquest cities for AI to stop spawning out of sight stacks? :lol:

AI also seems to be able to build proper armies this time, a lot less of those annoying 4-5 unit forces, however the AI doesn't seem to be able to handle corruption at all. They pretty much ignore it and take huge attrition.

Just like in Rome2. And it's not some kind of AI ,just a consequence of no move without general.

I don't think it's dumbed down either, it's just streamlined in a good way.

:deadtroll:
 

Trash

Pointing and laughing.
Joined
Dec 12, 2002
Messages
29,683
Location
About 8 meters beneath sea level.
One feature that needs to be added, in my opinion, is progressively more speed on the campaign map for progressively smaller armies, and more options for small forces to escape larger ones. This is not only realistic historically speaking, but would allow for more choice and versatility in gameplay. One unit of cavalry could "scout" without taking up an agent slot, for example, and small forces could raid minor settlements and engage with other smaller forces. As it is, by midgame, if you're not fielding a doomstack, you're vulnerable.

Mainly I'd like to see this because I also enjoy smaller-sized battles. They're simpler in a way, but much more punishing or rewarding of bad or good decision-making, unit composition, and formations.

Personally, I too enjoy smaller skirmishes and battles as these tend to be a lot more tactical and versatile. Not every battle needs to be a doomstack vs doomstack affair. I do however get why they didn't increase the speed of smaller stacks. In the TW system it would mean that the player would move his doomstack around as a group of smaller stacks forming a blob on the map. Thus gaining a marked increase in speed but still being able to field a full doomstack army when battle commences. It's the old march divided and fight concentrated maxim but would give the player too big an edge in their game system.

Anyway, playing as the dwarves one of the ways I do get those pesky greenskin half stacks to not run away from my stunties is to send smaller stacks after them. The AI figures it has a shot and engages. After which my dwarves get rid of another raiding nuisance. Only problem is when the small stack gets mobbed by greenskin hordes that suddenly materialise out of nowhere. Then it's just another grudge. It's the badlands after all.

Am enjoying the game. I do miss a lot of the map and gameplay features from the earlier Rome and Medieval 2 game. The battle maps no longer being 1-1 depictions of the campaign map remains my biggest pet peeve. The simplistic sieges, lack of smaller settlement maps and lack of buildings that have been build showing up on town maps piss me off. Battles are awesome though, and while I do want them to be a tad slower they are fun and varied. The different factions playing markedly different also feels genuinly fresh. I'm still hoping for someone someday making a game that combines CK2, Ageod's Alea Jacta Est and Rome/Medieval 2 but know it won't be CA that will. If ever anyone will. Had some hope to see it with the King Arthur game but that fizzled out by the time its sequel hit. For now, this will do. Which is more than I expected.
 

Steve

Augur
Joined
Aug 25, 2011
Messages
359
The campaign map has always served no other purpose than to make the player to care about the outcome of the battles, nobody ever has played a total war game for the empire management. There's just a lot less fiddling around (There still could be more) and I found my campaign going a lot faster than in any other TW game.

Are you saying battles actually matter?Like you don't have to rush conquest cities for AI to stop spawning out of sight stacks? :lol:

Absolutely yes, they're the bread and butter of the series. Guess what you have to do in order to conquer those cities ;)

I don't think it's dumbed down either, it's just streamlined in a good way.

:deadtroll:

The empire management has always been pretty shallow in TW games, they just removed most of the bloat that the series have never really needed. I wouldn't mind them removing the campaign map in its entirety and just focus on making a series of good and interesting battles, something like Shadow of the horned rat or Dark omen would be really neat. Ideal would be if they returned to Shogun/Medieval style gameboard style map instead of the 3D monstrosity but that's not likely to happen.
 
Last edited:

Zewp

Arcane
Joined
Sep 30, 2012
Messages
3,566
Codex 2013
I have to say, I don't know how they could label the Dwarfs the Easy campaign. Playing them on Hard I got completely fucked up twice. The Greenskins just absorb all the other tribes and become a near-unstoppable force with seemingly endless resources. Good luck staying alive when the idiotic dwarfs in the south keep losing to them, making them get fightiness points and free WAAAGH stacks. I'm on my third attempt and this time seems to be going better. I just turtled in Silver Valley and fed the other dwarf factions gold to keep their armies up and it seems to be going better. At 100 turns and the Chaos just invaded the Greenskin lands. If they fuck them up a bit I'll move in and take their provinces.
 

Zewp

Arcane
Joined
Sep 30, 2012
Messages
3,566
Codex 2013
I blame the AI. That's just how I roll.

In all seriousness, the battles feel more challenging to me than many of the more recent Total Wars (didn't play atilla so can't comment on that). You actually have to concentrate on army composition and make use of every advantage you get. And things can go bad in a second if you're not paying enough attention.

In other Total War games I could just assemble any army I felt like and chances were I could fuck the enemy up without too much strategic thought.
 

vonAchdorf

Arcane
Joined
Sep 20, 2014
Messages
13,465
I don't think it's dumbed down either, it's just streamlined in a good way. The campaign map has always served no other purpose than to make the player to care about the outcome of the battles, nobody ever has played a total war game for the empire management. There's just a lot less fiddling around (There still could be more) and I found my campaign going a lot faster than in any other TW game.

Often the campaign map gets boring more slowly than the tactical battles, of which you fought most by auto-resolve later in the games.
 

mutonizer

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Sep 4, 2014
Messages
1,041
In other Total War games I could just assemble any army I felt like and chances were I could fuck the enemy up without too much strategic thought.

I agree, overall much more challenging vanilla than anything Total War produced for a long ass time. Said so before but it's been years since I had fun playing one of these games without complete overhaul mods like DEI and whatnot.
Also, high level, geared up, heroes can fuck you up something fierce. I once had an enemy agent get lucky and assasinate my big dude followed by the enemy leader attacking my main stack and man, they just wiped the floor with me. Took me a while to recover because I didn't have any other hero to lead anything proper. Some probably hate that but personally I love it, really fits the fantasy aspect.

And siege battles are far from dumbed down, they are just sorted more efficiently to cut down all the stupid shit that's been plaguing TW series forever. Now you can actually play tactically in sieges which is a breath of fresh air. I guess that's the advantage of the Warhammer franchise compared to "historical" fit, they can do proper gameplay that just works better.
 

Trash

Pointing and laughing.
Joined
Dec 12, 2002
Messages
29,683
Location
About 8 meters beneath sea level.
It's good fun without mods so far, aight. Still looking very much forward to what mods will do. The army books alone should make for long, entertaining unit expansion mods. And that's without the game currently having beastman, skaven, elves, tomb kings or any of the myriad of other fun factions to play against or with.
 

Blaine

Cis-Het Oppressor
Patron
Joined
Oct 6, 2012
Messages
1,874,662
Location
Roanoke, VA
Grab the Codex by the pussy
One feature that needs to be added, in my opinion, is progressively more speed on the campaign map for progressively smaller armies, and more options for small forces to escape larger ones. This is not only realistic historically speaking, but would allow for more choice and versatility in gameplay. One unit of cavalry could "scout" without taking up an agent slot, for example, and small forces could raid minor settlements and engage with other smaller forces. As it is, by midgame, if you're not fielding a doomstack, you're vulnerable.

Mainly I'd like to see this because I also enjoy smaller-sized battles. They're simpler in a way, but much more punishing or rewarding of bad or good decision-making, unit composition, and formations.

Personally, I too enjoy smaller skirmishes and battles as these tend to be a lot more tactical and versatile. Not every battle needs to be a doomstack vs doomstack affair. I do however get why they didn't increase the speed of smaller stacks. In the TW system it would mean that the player would move his doomstack around as a group of smaller stacks forming a blob on the map. Thus gaining a marked increase in speed but still being able to field a full doomstack army when battle commences. It's the old march divided and fight concentrated maxim but would give the player too big an edge in their game system.

An excellent point, though keep in mind: In Warhammer, each stack requires its own lord, and lords are expensive and increase total army upkeep. Left alone, they're vulnerable, and if killed you'd have to wait four turns for them to be recruitable again (and an enemy agent levels up, or an enemy lord gets a bit of XP, etc.).

In addition, restrictions could be put in place (actually, I think some already are in place, not 100% sure): Only one army transfer per army per turn. Thus if you're fielding four quarter-strength armies, you'd need at least two turns of standing more-or-less still to first merge four into two, and then two into one.

Anyway, playing as the dwarves one of the ways I do get those pesky greenskin half stacks to not run away from my stunties is to send smaller stacks after them. The AI figures it has a shot and engages. After which my dwarves get rid of another raiding nuisance. Only problem is when the small stack suddenly gets mobbed by greenskin hordes that suddenly materialise out of nowhere. Then it's just another grudge. It's the badlands after all.

Good idea.

The battle maps no longer being 1-1 depictions of the campaign map remains my biggest pet peeve.

This might have something to do with the lack of geographical data available. For all of the other games, they might have fed digital geographical data into a series of scripts that procedurally generated a rough approximation of the actual terrain, and then had some junior designer tweak it or whatever. Just taking a wild guess. Also, some of the terrain in Warhammer is meant to look fanciful and would be somewhat bizarre in 1:1.
 

Vibalist

Arcane
Joined
Jul 21, 2008
Messages
3,583
Location
Denmark
Combat has also suffered from over simplification. Gone are your unit formations (you only have two, misssle front, missle rear). Combat is also incredibly fast. It may be nitpicky, but I really liked zooming in on close combat and watching the models kick the tar out of each other in amusing ways. Now, units are destroyed and flee at such a pace as it makes enjoying the scene practically impossible. Elsewhere it has been mentioned that there is some sort of mechanic that buffs armies that have greater numbers than their foes. In the days of yore, a well thought out defense, making use of terrain, unit strengths, and cover meant you could outwit and defeat a much larger and better equipped force, or at least bloody their noses enough to slow them down. Now, if you are outnumbered, the battles are incredibly lopsided, no matter what you do. This mechanic plays in your favor as well. A small AI force can be routed almost instantly, and you will take minimal casualties. One final mention on battles, ranged weapons and artillery are DEVASTATINGLY accurate. Not only are they accurate, but they are an absolute menace, to you or the AI. Artillery can wipe out entire units long before they ever engage, and fire with accuracy that would make an olympic marksman green at the gills, regardles of cover.

- Attacking villages just results in a field battle because they couldn't be bothered to model villages
- Units don't have animations for unnecessary things like reloading

Dude, did you just copy paste this Steam review?

steam_review.png
 

Blaine

Cis-Het Oppressor
Patron
Joined
Oct 6, 2012
Messages
1,874,662
Location
Roanoke, VA
Grab the Codex by the pussy
I knew that bit about reload animations sounded familiar.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom