Total War: Star Wars?

[Storyfag]

stage 4 cancer

Eh, nothing a bit of Sith alchemy won't cure. Just don't mind the addiction.

 

[Cyberarmy]

hoping it will be like empire at war

Yeah, this is all we need. Just give it to Petroglyph and make the graphics better than early 2000s 3D and voila, Bob is your uncle!

 

[Luka-boy]

Hell, modded Empire at War is actually all I ever want, especially now that mods were able to fix a good deal of the jank and pathfinding and land battles are not terrible. Petroglyph still updates the game every now and then too.

Want a Clone Wars era campaign? Play the Fall of the Republic mod.
Want a Galactic Civil War era campaign? The Awakening of the Rebellion mod has you covered with much improved gameplay all around.
Want some old EU themed campaign? Thrawn's Revenge mod.

Plus plenty of other mods that have their own gameplay quirks and/or graphics updates or cover other eras.

I'm 99.9% sure modern CA can't make a better Star Wars Total War-like game than that.

 

[9ted6]

It's still crazy that they allegedly understand they need a whole new engine to do a WW1 game but think that the current engine, notorious for 15 years for doing ranged combat terribly, will work for two scifi settings where the vast majority of battles involve ranged weapons.

 

[Lacrymas]

Clown Assembly. If they are indeed making a Star Wars TW, I predict it will fare as well as Three Kingdoms - ridiculous and unearned initial sales/players and then nobody buying any DLC because the game itself will be shit or won't lend itself to a DLC-milking scheme.

 

[Galdred]

I don't really believe the Star Wars TW thingy, especially under development at the same time as 40K.
Also, 40K has a lot more melee and factions than SW, and focuses a lot more on ground combat. TW: Star Wars without starship battles would make zero sense (that said, starship battles would be easier to do than modern ranged infantry battles).

 

[Serious_Business]

I'm gonna throw up

Ahhh yes, feels good, vomit everywhere

 

[ropetight]

Expecting Star wars to be your big tent pole game is a really risky idea these days. Warhammer still has it's full range of paypigs despite trying to kill them off. Star wars has successfully killed them off.

Pft, I wish. Star Wars is a huge franchise. It'll have people in line ready to swallow its slop even if Disney takes a literal shit on their heads.

Has Disney even made back the money paid to Lucas?

Dunno if true, but it's discussing a SEC filing or something.

View attachment 49820

Fuck this gay ass world.

Not from movies, not even close - all Disney Star Wars movies made cca 1,8 billion profit.
https://observer.com/2020/08/star-wars-gross-profit-earnings-disney-box-office/

Which leaves more than 10 billions of profit from toys, video game rights and royalties, Mandalorian and the rest of Star Wars TV.
Could be, but some creative accounting could be included in.

 

[Lacrymas]

Merchandise has always made more profit than the media itself afaik.

 

[Hell Swarm]

Merchandise has always made more profit than the media itself afaik.

Always was.

 

[Fedora Master]

Clown Assembly. If they are indeed making a Star Wars TW, I predict it will fare as well as Three Kingdoms - ridiculous and unearned initial sales/players and then nobody buying any DLC because the game itself will be shit or won't lend itself to a DLC-milking scheme.

3K was mechanically better than their other recent slop, including Troy.

 

[Lacrymas]

3K was mechanically better than their other recent slop, including Troy.

You mean the game in which three (3) elephants with no buffs can beat an entire army on their own, including in records mode? I'm not convinced.

 

[Lyric Suite]

Creative Assembly

False advertising at this point.

 

[BlackAdderBG]

It's still crazy that they allegedly understand they need a whole new engine to do a WW1 game but think that the current engine, notorious for 15 years for doing ranged combat terribly, will work for two scifi settings where the vast majority of battles involve ranged weapons.

No idea where you got that. Gunpowder combat is the only thing the engine is great at. Fall of the samurai has the most immersive gun combat in any game. The problem with ranged combat was never the engine, but the retarded devs post Shogun 2.

 

[Lacrymas]

It is the engine. There are numerous times unfixable bugs have drastically affected the games' design. For example, the "all armies need a general" thing is actually an attempt to address an exploit with hiring new generals resetting an army's move points, effectively giving it unlimited movement. Other notorious things are infantry behaving like liquid molecules, wonky combat on walls, pathfinding issues, the gate bug. The list of bugs that have existed in this engine for over a decade goes on and on. On top of that, there are scores of devs who have come out saying the engine is just spaghetti code at this point, requiring immense effort to add even the simplest content. It took them 8+ months to tweak (rework is too generous of a word imo) 3 races. It's not even 3 complete races because Markus Wolfheart and Volkmar the Grim still have subpar campaigns. This is not sustainable when taking into account the vast majority of factions/races need at least this amount of tweaking. Some races are even borderline unplayable (Daemons of Chaos, Vampire Coast, Tomb Kings, Ogres, maybe Norsca). It's a mess.

 

[BrainMuncher]

It's interesting that a lot of older franchises were successful as much as a result of a superior engine as the game itself. Crytek, id software, epic, etc., probably Total War too with the ability to show lots of units at one time being a feature.

Engines don't get talked about as much these days but are still a factor in ways people don't necessarily realise. I remember enjoying Rise of Nations when it came out, then when I tried the sequel Rise of Legends it was rubbish. Apparently it used the same engine as Empire Earth III, which also flopped badly. It's like it was impossible to make a good game with the engine.

 

[rumSaint]

It's interesting that a lot of older franchises were successful as much as a result of a superior engine as the game itself. Crytek, id software, epic, etc., probably Total War too with the ability to show lots of units at one time being a feature.

Engines don't get talked about as much these days but are still a factor in ways people don't necessarily realise. I remember enjoying Rise of Nations when it came out, then when I tried the sequel Rise of Legends it was rubbish. Apparently it used the same engine as Empire Earth III, which also flopped badly. It's like it was impossible to make a good game with the engine.

Interesting take, but also pretty true.

Own engine or heavily customized allows creators to add the features they need. Look at older Battlefields 3 and 4 on Frostbite, absolute beauty. But they managed to push something as laughable as Ass Effect: Andromeda with infamous animations and glitches. Not only engine was not adjusted to such game, it was also (at least from I've read) poorly documented so working on it outside of DICE was a nightmare.

As for Total War, unless they build solid engine from the start they can GTFO. Rome 2 started to be good (not great) after years of patching and community mods, yet they have built several games on it. There are some rumors about TW WW1 and I cannot imagine ranged warfare with this engine. FoV for units is broken, in gunner formations back rows shoot straight through front row heads, every fucking shot is an arc with velocity of arrow. Where the fuck is impact of shots like in Shogun CA? WHERE?

Star Slop and 40k would be ultimate and final cash grab in CA history (which maybe would put them out of the misery finally), because I cannot imagine them creating a good game. And imagine Soyboys and Neckbeards backlash.

 

[Be Kind Rewind]

hoping it will be like empire at war

Empire at War was always kind of shit honestly, and Petroglyph only delivered flops since then, I still remember the shitshow that was Universe at War. Galactic Battlegrounds was far superior, it might have been an Age of Empires 2 total conversion done by LucasArts, but that's not a bad thing. Modders have also kept adding content from the films to it.

 

[9ted6]

It's still crazy that they allegedly understand they need a whole new engine to do a WW1 game but think that the current engine, notorious for 15 years for doing ranged combat terribly, will work for two scifi settings where the vast majority of battles involve ranged weapons.

Fall of the samurai has the most immersive gun combat in any game.

Until the AI starts traffic jamming its units together then after taking 90% losses while not shooting back at you it charges with whatever it's got left because it doesn't understand how to make ranged attacks and that remaining 10% gets wiped out.

This has been true of every Total Warscape game.

For example, the "all armies need a general" thing is actually an attempt to address an exploit with hiring new generals resetting an army's move points, effectively giving it unlimited movement.

Also because they couldn't program the AI to organize its armies properly. Even back in Medieval 2 and Rome the AI had a tendency to divvy up into tiny groups of 2 or 3 units in an army and throw them around randomly. Unfortunately despite gimping the system with forced general recruitment the AI still frequently has 1 unit Lord stacks running around and dying so it didn't even really fix the problem.

 

[BlackAdderBG]

It's still crazy that they allegedly understand they need a whole new engine to do a WW1 game but think that the current engine, notorious for 15 years for doing ranged combat terribly, will work for two scifi settings where the vast majority of battles involve ranged weapons.

Fall of the samurai has the most immersive gun combat in any game.

Until the AI starts traffic jamming its units together then after taking 90% losses while not shooting back at you it charges with whatever it's got left because it doesn't understand how to make ranged attacks and that remaining 10% gets wiped out.

This has been true of every Total Warscape game.

For example, the "all armies need a general" thing is actually an attempt to address an exploit with hiring new generals resetting an army's move points, effectively giving it unlimited movement.

Also because they couldn't program the AI to organize its armies properly. Even back in Medieval 2 and Rome the AI had a tendency to divvy up into tiny groups of 2 or 3 units in an army and throw them around randomly. Unfortunately despite gimping the system with forced general recruitment the AI still frequently has 1 unit Lord stacks running around and dying so it didn't even really fix the problem.

That sounds like an AI problem, not core engine one. Simulating ranged combat works extremely well in multiplayer so it's not the engine per se at fault, but the people what design and code the AI part of it.

And I will grant the CA programmers some credit, as when the AI in a Total War game doesn't work it is pretty spectacular and obvious for everyone to see. So the lows are pretty low and when things are going smooth nobody even notices.

 

[9ted6]

It's still crazy that they allegedly understand they need a whole new engine to do a WW1 game but think that the current engine, notorious for 15 years for doing ranged combat terribly, will work for two scifi settings where the vast majority of battles involve ranged weapons.

Fall of the samurai has the most immersive gun combat in any game.

Until the AI starts traffic jamming its units together then after taking 90% losses while not shooting back at you it charges with whatever it's got left because it doesn't understand how to make ranged attacks and that remaining 10% gets wiped out.

This has been true of every Total Warscape game.

For example, the "all armies need a general" thing is actually an attempt to address an exploit with hiring new generals resetting an army's move points, effectively giving it unlimited movement.

Also because they couldn't program the AI to organize its armies properly. Even back in Medieval 2 and Rome the AI had a tendency to divvy up into tiny groups of 2 or 3 units in an army and throw them around randomly. Unfortunately despite gimping the system with forced general recruitment the AI still frequently has 1 unit Lord stacks running around and dying so it didn't even really fix the problem.

That sounds like an AI problem, not core engine one. Simulating ranged combat works extremely well in multiplayer so it's not the engine per se at fault, but the people what design and code the AI part of it.

And I will grant the CA programmers some credit, as when the AI in a Total War game doesn't work it is pretty spectacular and obvious for everyone to see. So the lows are pretty low and when things are going smooth nobody even notices.

It's hard to tell how much the engine itself hamstrings the AI vs how bad the AI coding is on its own. Basegame Shogun 2 and Warhammer have pretty good battle AI but I think it's mainly because they're melee focused games.

 

[Lacrymas]

Troy also has good battle AI, but I suspect it's also because it's a melee focused game because ranged units still run around like headless chickens and the AI can't defend them.

 

[Harthwain]

What the hell does Star Wars-themed mean lol. It's either set in the Star Wars setting or its not, it's not a fucking decoration.

It means it is Total War using Star Wars skin. Something like this:

 

[Lacrymas]

Themed Total Wars are generally Total War with a wallpaper, that's why Warhammer is such a disappointment all around.

 

[Harthwain]

Themed Total Wars are generally Total War with a wallpaper, that's why Warhammer is such a disappointment all around.

I'd say the big special units and heroes made Total War WORSE (for me at least). Unless they do something really interesting with this Total War: Star Wars (which I doubt will happen) I would rather wait for Star Wars: Rebellion to go on sale on GOG.