New Total War game: Warhammer

[Inspectah]

Rome 2 got a lot of patches, but it's impossible to fix it since the very design of the game is broken(same thing that happened to diablo 3, for reference)
Shogun 2 was good, but the DLC whoring pissed me off, and the engine is still shit with it's "cinematic" bullshit
I wouldn't have a lot of hope for this new one

 

[Agesilaus]

1) no, total war has a proven track history of making irredeemably shit games, both at the tactical and strategic levels. It's been at least a decade since they've been able to do a half-way decent cavalry charge, for example.

2) no

3) It's set in Japan, so you were mistaken

 

[Average Manatee]

I was going to open a new thread for this but then this one seems appropriate enough:

How is the state of the series these days ? Last title I tried was Shogun 2 and found it surprisingly good, both from the AI to actual design standpoint. I gave up the campaign half-way as I found it kind of boring but it looked a return to form more or less (...to original Shogun and Medieval 1 form, of course). But I heard awful things about Rome 2 so I don't know. So I think my questions are:

1) Should I have my hopes up for this Warhammer version ?

2) Did Rome 2 get good through patches ?

3) Was Shogun 2 really decent as I thought or I was mistaken ? (Btw, is Fall of Samurai any good ? Could its campaign convince me to try it to the finish where vanilla Shogun 2 couldn't?)

Thanks, bros.

There's not much evidence, but Rome 2 was so bad that there isn't much hope that TWWH will be any better than mediocre.

Rome 2 is 95% shit 5% good now compared to 99% shit 1% good on release. A miraculous 500% improvement!

Shogun 2 was pretty good, though lack of variety in factions kills much replay value. FotS is really cool and worth a try, it is basically a whole new game with the closest thing to modern warfare in the TW series.

 

[Trash]

Best part about Rome II is the Divide et Impera mod, which makes the turd worth a playthrough. Massive amount of work on what amounts to be fixing a broken piece of shit, with the base game taking over quite a few of the improvements the modders introduced in their patches/dlc/goty edition. It's a massive mod that practically changes everything Rome II does. DIE even does enough to showcase what the great graphics could've meant with meaningful gameplay. The rubbish basegame is still visible underneath, so don't get Rome II expecting DIE to fix it. Do get DIE if you want to give your dust collecting copy of Rome II one more chance.

And I have got no hope for Warhammer. The video shows that the battles have the same problems as they've had since at least Medieval 2. The interviews and previews have shown enough info that they're going for an even more streamlined campaign. At least it will have neat factions and units. That should provide some fun.

 

[Average Manatee]

TW has had too much complexity in the strategic map for a while. Some streamlining would not be a bad thing, especially if it makes for a better AI.

Seriously the last thing I give a shit about is manually walking princesses/merchants/priests/spies/diplomats around. If I'm going to micromanage in a total war game I want it to be for things directly related to making bigger armies and smashing smaller armies. And recent total war games have been especially bad about making tons of factions that play completely the same. If TW:WH invests less time in adding too much stuff for everyone to use and invests more time in adding cool faction-specific mechanics then I'll be much more interested.

 

[A horse of course]

TW has had too much complexity in the strategic map for a while. Some streamlining would not be a bad thing, especially if it makes for a better AI.

Seriously the last thing I give a shit about is manually walking princesses/merchants/priests/spies/diplomats around. If I'm going to micromanage in a total war game I want it to be for things directly related to making bigger armies and smashing smaller armies. And recent total war games have been especially bad about making tons of factions that play completely the same. If TW:WH invests less time in adding too much stuff for everyone to use and invests more time in adding cool faction-specific mechanics then I'll be much more interested.

I wouldn't say it was "complexity" so much as...bittyness? Micromanaging all those fucking agents was cool in the early game as it gave you more stuff to do on the strat map, but it made Fempire-management even more of a chore. I would rather handle a lot of agent stuff in the CK2 style, leaving physical agents only for critical actions. I did like Rome 2's approach of giving your army benefits based on what sort of agent was attached, periodically having them break off to go on missions. That could obviously be adapted for the use of mages or priests in a fantasy game, where their presence in an army might help protect that stack from campaign-map spells that could cause disease or slow them down.

 

[Silva]

I would like to see a Total War game ditching the strategic layer altogether and focusing solely on battles.

Make it like a general SIM or something where you have decision points during the campaign to branch out progression paths and upgrade your skills, troops, etc. Perhaps have some cool barracks screens between battles where you choose how to inspire your men or training your son or banging a slave bitch. Then make the battles really realistic, desperate clashes against a really good AI.

I would pay bucks for this General-Sim shit.

 

[Average Manatee]

I dunno, I lost all interest in most agents by turn 1. Early game you care about quickly expanding, not building a 500 gold merchant to make 10 gold per turn off a resource (who is then destroyed by an AI merchant with 3x his skill level by turn 10).

If the UI could be improved it would be more bearable, but at this point I don't think that's happening. I mean holy shit, it's 2015 after over a decade of total war games, and yet there is still no "find army with unused move points", "find agent with unused move points", and "mark this unit as a garrison so it doesn't show up in the previous two selections" buttons, something that virtually every turn based strategy game has had since the beginning of time.

 

[Inspectah]

I would like to see a Total War game ditching the strategic layer altogether and focusing solely on battles.

Make it like a general SIM or something where you have decision points during the campaign to branch out progression paths and upgrade your skills, troops, etc. Perhaps have some cool barracks screens between battles where you choose how to inspire your men or training your son or banging a slave bitch. Then make the battles really realistic, desperate clashes against a really good AI.

I would pay bucks for this General-Sim shit.

Kinda like the King Arthur game?

 

[LizardWizard]

TW has had too much complexity in the strategic map for a while. Some streamlining would not be a bad thing, especially if it makes for a better AI.

Seriously the last thing I give a shit about is manually walking princesses/merchants/priests/spies/diplomats around..

Agents are dumb as fuck I agree but the word 'complexity' has no business describing total war strategic map. Seriously what the fuck are you on.

At least with warhammer agents will participate in battles and controlling hordes of greenskins/undead will be much more interesting than clone spears # 14.

 

[Quatlo]

Are you seriously having trouble keeping track of 5 pieces on board? Holy shit.

 

[vonAchdorf]

What's left of TW if you remove the strategic map? An auto resolve button?

 

[Quatlo]

What's left of TW if you remove the strategic map? An auto resolve button?

Muh Cavalry Charges

 

[Average Manatee]

Are you seriously having trouble keeping track of 5 pieces on board? Holy shit.

More like 10-15 pieces that are hard to spot and have to be managed every turn across a huge landmass. And you also have to keep watch over all of the AI's shit, which either requires huge inter turns or just hoping you spot it. Sorry if I want to actually fucking war and conquer a country instead of spending the whole night managing every fucking agent. Because that's what rulers did, they knew every priest/spy/assassin/merchant/princess by name, personally ordered them to their tasks, and knew all of their personality traits (which also had to be micromanaged).

TW would be far better off going back to the Medieval 1/Shogun 1 approach with simple provinces. Funny how they've still to this day had the most competent strategic AI.

 

[Raghar]

Because that's what rulers did, they knew every priest/spy/assassin/merchant/princess by name, personally ordered them to their tasks, and knew all of their personality traits (which also had to be micromanaged).

Actually they did.

 

[Raghar]

Kinda like the King Arthur game?

Movement of armies on strategic map, creating armies from units, leveling up armies, building castle, training leaders...
I think it was quite different than what Silva proposed.

 

[Average Manatee]

Actually they did.

I highly doubt so. Knowing spies/assassins would be too close, too easy to pin their crimes on. Princesses certainly (but French princesses wouldn't be wandering aimlessly around Poland either), and priests maybe (there are literally hundreds if not thousands of priests in most TW nations, don't tell me the king knows them all). Merchants probably not, unless they were someone very famous.

 

[Wulfstand]

How exactly does this total war game tie in with Age of Sigmar? Isn't it kind of weird/stupid to make a game placed in a setting renounced by its creators?

 

[kazgar]

I assume age of sigmar can be covered by a dawn of war mod DLC.

 

[Jick Magger]

How exactly does this total war game tie in with Age of Sigmar? Isn't it kind of weird/stupid to make a game placed in a setting renounced by its creators?

It is. Maybe the game's been in the works alot longer than they're officially letting on, and they felt that scrapping all the assets they already have and rebuilding the game from the ground-up would cost too much? Or their license to use WHFB doesn't extend to Age of Sigmar?

There's also the fact that GW has always been deathly paranoid about video game adaptations of the tabletop. They don't have to worry about people using the game as an alternative to the tabletop when the tabletop version doesn't exist anymore.

 

[Wulfstand]

There's also the fact that GW has always been deathly paranoid about video game adaptations of the tabletop. They don't have to worry about people using the game as an alternative to the tabletop when the tabletop version doesn't exist anymore.

That actually makes quite a lot of sense, now that you bring it up. CA and GW really is a match made in Heaven.

 

[Neanderthal]

I really can't see how this is going to top Shadow of the Horned Rat and Dark Omen, and why the hell didn't they continue that series, did it not sell well or something?

 

[Silva]

Movement of armies on strategic map, creating armies from units, leveling up armies, building castle, training leaders...
I think it was quite different than what Silva proposed.

Yep, its different. What I propose is the equivalent of Wing Commander or Operation Flashpoint, only instead of a pilot or a soldier on missions, you are a general commanding your army. It would be more, uh, personal, I think.

- a central story for you to follow just like WC and OFP, but with multiple branches and alternate paths opening up according to your performance and decisions during missions/operations.

- no strategic layer gameplay. There should be a map, but only to see where you are on a given campaign.

- game based on operations with multi-branching missions each (again, just like OPF or WC)

- manage your army in a more personal way - meet your captains at the tavern/bar/bathhouse/sake-house between missions and converse with them. Have full profile with traits for them. Like Jagged Alliance. Have them shouting and bleeding at you during missions. Focus progression on field- tactics, abilities, maneuvers, etc.

- make the battles hardcore simulation shit. The equivalent of DCS World flight simulators for battles. Boost AI intelligence. Make the game extra difficult, but fair. The Dark Souls of strategy games.

- Accomodate "Losing is fun" philosophy. Aka: no save load game. If you lose a battle, you lose a battle. Like a man. Like in FTL. Make it so losing a battle doesnt mean game over. Make it so its possible to feel if youre losing and have the option to flee to preserve resources and alleviate losses. Make it so the campaign/story accomodate losses maybe through branching paths or something.

- Have the campaigns be historical multi-branch stories with at least two different sides/generals to choose from. (Oda vs Tokugawa; Leonidas vs Xerxes; Salahadin vs Lionheart, etc). Have each historical general well depicted both skills-wise and visually like my badass Masamune fella here..

- Name it "Real War" and reboot the whole series from the start: Shogun Real War, Medieval Real War, Rome Real War.

Voilá.

 

[DramaticPopcorn]

That's not gonna appeal to many people. Stupid idea. You should feel bad.

 

[Silva]