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.

Warhammer Total War: Warhammer 2

Joined
Jan 7, 2012
Messages
12,062
We're talking about the same company who spent a decade unable to make their AI understand how to launch a somewhat competent naval invasion, to the point that they entirely removed the feature.
That's not what I heard. I heard they didn't wanted to invent and make 30 ship models, and opted for cheaper decision to simply keep naval combat out. I played with some designs and found decent way how to NOT make any models (perhaps 2D drawing at most) but how to make ship combat critical and engaging. (And wasting horrible amount of money of each sea dependant player.)

I heard that it was because Games Workshop thought that Naval combat in TWWH2 would interfere with Battlefleet Gothic sales and nixed the idea.
 
Joined
Jan 7, 2012
Messages
12,062
Did anybody try that tabletop unit cap mod? I’m not sure whether it works for rebel armies as well.

I did try it. It honestly didn't do that much for me specifically since I apparently make what tabletop rules consider to be well-balanced armies. I'm not sure it does much for the AI either since at least in my experience the AI in recent patches seems pretty good about unit balance. The only instance I've seen of AI making stupid armies is when the lizardmen do their rite that summons a dozen dinos and I doubt the mod handles that anyway.

As for the rebel armies, you want "Cataph's Less Rebel Rebels" which is made by the same guy and restricts rebel unit types to non-elite units.

As far as the tabletop unit balance mod itself, I'm kind of ehh on the whole deal. Pros: It generally makes units more well-defined with stronger strengths and weaker weaknesses. This is pretty good for your standard infantry unit types Cons: it makes lords absolute shit in combat (it was already usually a bad move to invest in personal upgrades for the lord rather than army upgrades, now its even more useless), and it seems to have decided that all explosive damage should be armor piercing (e.g. mortars and grenade outriders for empire, supposed to annihilate unarmored units but be at least semi-weak against armor, now fully annihilate armor too).
 
Joined
Jun 9, 2019
Messages
1,216
Strap Yourselves In
Did anybody try that tabletop unit cap mod? I’m not sure whether it works for rebel armies as well.

I did try it. It honestly didn't do that much for me specifically since I apparently make what tabletop rules consider to be well-balanced armies. I'm not sure it does much for the AI either since at least in my experience the AI in recent patches seems pretty good about unit balance. The only instance I've seen of AI making stupid armies is when the lizardmen do their rite that summons a dozen dinos and I doubt the mod handles that anyway.

As for the rebel armies, you want "Cataph's Less Rebel Rebels" which is made by the same guy and restricts rebel unit types to non-elite units.

As far as the tabletop unit balance mod itself, I'm kind of ehh on the whole deal. Pros: It generally makes units more well-defined with stronger strengths and weaker weaknesses. This is pretty good for your standard infantry unit types Cons: it makes lords absolute shit in combat (it was already usually a bad move to invest in personal upgrades for the lord rather than army upgrades, now its even more useless), and it seems to have decided that all explosive damage should be armor piercing (e.g. mortars and grenade outriders for empire, supposed to annihilate unarmored units but be at least semi-weak against armor, now fully annihilate armor too).
Hmm not sure we’re talking about the same mod, mine just introduces unit categories and limits for them per army.
 
Joined
Jan 7, 2012
Messages
12,062
The tabletop unit balance mod is "boyz will be boyz". It was recommended to be used with the tabletop unit caps mod but is optional.
 

Fedora Master

Arcane
Patron
Edgy
Joined
Jun 28, 2017
Messages
18,208
Clipboard02.png


Looted after I autoresolved the very first battle. :smug:
 
Joined
Jan 7, 2012
Messages
12,062
Free spells are pretty nice early game when you have a lot of small trash armies to chew through but anything that isn't armor piercing gets to be crap fairly quickly. 3 Helm of Discords on the other hand would be awesome all game long. Base hit chance is 40% so -24/-24 MA/MD means you go to 64% chance to hit enemies vs. 16% chance to be hit. That means multiple units in your army get to open up with a 4:1 K : D ratio in their favor. And I think the way all spells like this work is that as long as the edge of the AoE touches even 1 model of a unit the whole unit takes the penalty. Granted on Huge unit scale you only affect 2-3 units still but that's enough for it to be worth a lot, and on anything smaller its just absurdly OP.
 

Inspectah

Savant
Joined
Jun 29, 2015
Messages
468
After failed attempts to make a borrowed version work, including firewall fuckery, I am considering getting the game
Is it Worth it? And do I really need to buy the first game as well Just to play with dem fookin dorfs?
 

tabacila

Augur
Joined
Nov 2, 2011
Messages
287
Yes and yes.
As a side note to your dwarf question, there is a chance that in the future CA will do a cross game DLC like they did for the Empire, and bring a dwarf faction to WH2. I still suggest getting WH1 though, since you will get access to Mortal Empire campaign, aka the real way of playing WH2.
 

AgentFransis

Arbiter
Patron
Joined
Jun 4, 2014
Messages
927
It's worth it. Now is the time too since it's on sale. (trial version worked just fine for me, though it's somewhat out of date. Try the one from the corsairs cove)

It really is quite amazing that a company that was on pure decline for more that a decade actually managed to reverse course and deliver incline. The game is very fun and doesn't even need total conversion mods to be good like most past total wars. It still has all kinds of popamoly simplifications compared to the more simulationist classic Total Wars (like no navies, automatic garrisons, all armies tied to generals and limited building slots per settlement) but on the whole they work well to make the game more challenging and all the fantasy elements like spells, monsters and crazy units add interest and tactical variety to battles. Also each faction has it's own special mechanics, quests and unique leaders.
 
Joined
Jan 7, 2012
Messages
12,062
After failed attempts to make a borrowed version work, including firewall fuckery, I am considering getting the game
Is it Worth it? And do I really need to buy the first game as well Just to play with dem fookin dorfs?

It's very easy to pirate everything else if you just have TWWH2.
 
Joined
Jan 7, 2012
Messages
12,062
Can anyone tell me how confederations work with regards to getting new legendary lords? Specifically, if I play Von Carsteins and confederate Mannfred before he's unlocked Helman Ghorst, will I get Helman Ghorst or be able to unlock him?

Unfortunately Mannfred doesn't want to confederate right now even though he's on his last minor settlement with no army and I'm sieging it, so I figure I'll vassalize, wait 20 or so turns for relations to improve, then break vassalage and confederate. But I'd rather not go all that time and screw up getting Helman, if the only way to get Helman is to let Mannfred fight battles I'll restart and let him do that.
 

Olinser

Savant
Joined
Nov 1, 2018
Messages
870
Location
Denial
Can anyone tell me how confederations work with regards to getting new legendary lords? Specifically, if I play Von Carsteins and confederate Mannfred before he's unlocked Helman Ghorst, will I get Helman Ghorst or be able to unlock him?

Unfortunately Mannfred doesn't want to confederate right now even though he's on his last minor settlement with no army and I'm sieging it, so I figure I'll vassalize, wait 20 or so turns for relations to improve, then break vassalage and confederate. But I'd rather not go all that time and screw up getting Helman, if the only way to get Helman is to let Mannfred fight battles I'll restart and let him do that.

No, you will not. When you confederate you take ownership of everything that the faction has, including active armies. You do NOT get control of lords/heroes that are wounded. Have to wait for them to recruit him.
 

Burning Bridges

Enviado de meu SM-G3502T usando Tapatalk
Joined
Apr 21, 2006
Messages
27,221
Location
Tampon Bay
Would you guys recommend this because of Warhammer or because it is genuinely better than the other TW tiles? I once played Shogun, MTW and RTW and got tired of shitty AI and general suckage, but just saw this getting a huge discount.
 

Olinser

Savant
Joined
Nov 1, 2018
Messages
870
Location
Denial
Would you guys recommend this because of Warhammer or because it is genuinely better than the other TW tiles? I once played Shogun, MTW and RTW and got tired of shitty AI and general suckage, but just saw this getting a huge discount.

Both. This is warhammer before GW destroyed the setting with the joke of End Time and Age of Shitmar.

But it also has by far the most varied factions that play radically differently, unit's all have different purposes and strengths, and the addition of a huge variety of magic further adds to the combat depth.

From a Total War perspective this is the best game, BUT you have to pick up both 1 and 2 to get the full experience, as you can only play the factions from 1 if you own both games.
 
Joined
Jun 9, 2019
Messages
1,216
Strap Yourselves In
that play radically differently
I’d say there’s not much difference in most of the factions. They all play the same except some DLC stuff. And the tactical depth which is the thing at the beginning become obsolete as soon as you’ll get strong economy.

Though I’d also say that there might be fun with diplomacy: you can gather a strong alliance which can do all the boring shit for you.
 
Joined
Jan 7, 2012
Messages
12,062
It's a good game and the reason its a good game is not because of Warhammer but also because of Warhammer. At Warhammer 1 launch it was OK (well I'm guessing since I didn't play WH1 at launch, just without DLC). It became good because Warhammer can sell good DLCs a lot better than their historical games which then meant a lot more support and updates over time that made it a better game.

Unfortunately for CA I think this is coming back to bite them because the historical games can't replicate the DLC treadmill nearly as well. Future historical games will be compared to Warhammer and come up short. The number of people who want to pay $10 for a new faction in Three Kingdoms with marginally different infantry/archer/cavalry stats and a different banner is far fewer than those who will pay $10 for a faction of rat ninjas.
 

Lone Wolf

Arcane
Vatnik
Joined
Apr 17, 2014
Messages
3,703
If they're not trying to get the LOTR license, I have no idea what they're doing. Whatever their next big title is, it should be non-historical. TW:WH2 is on ~23,000 players right now. The next closest TW title is TW3K with ~7,000. Mind you, the former has an all-time peak of 72,000 and the latter 191,000 (which makes the player retention and lifetime sales all the more impressive).
 

Danikas

Arcane
Joined
Jun 15, 2017
Messages
1,604
If they're not trying to get the LOTR license, I have no idea what they're doing. Whatever their next big title is, it should be non-historical. TW:WH2 is on ~23,000 players right now. The next closest TW title is TW3K with ~7,000. Mind you, the former has an all-time peak of 72,000 and the latter 191,000 (which makes the player retention and lifetime sales all the more impressive).
Gw will tell them to make Age of Sigmar total war just watch.
 

Jugashvili

管官的官
Patron
Joined
Aug 20, 2013
Messages
2,554
Location
Georgia, Asia
Codex 2013
Both. This is warhammer before GW destroyed the setting with the joke of End Time and Age of Shitmar.

But it also has by far the most varied factions that play radically differently, unit's all have different purposes and strengths, and the addition of a huge variety of magic further adds to the combat depth.

From a Total War perspective this is the best game, BUT you have to pick up both 1 and 2 to get the full experience, as you can only play the factions from 1 if you own both games.

Honestly I wouldn't say it's the best Total War game let alone a good one; but it's a fun Total War game and that alone makes it more worth playing than the other ones. Highly different factions, powerful heroes and varied units and monsters do not make for deeper combat or more tactics; quite the contrary, in fact. Tactics shine most when armies are equal and battles are won through manoeuver rather than army compositions and rock-paper-scissors mechanics (think chess). Following the trend of the last historical titles, the franchise moved further into extremely fast moving units in which deployment doesn't matter, battle lines are almost non-existent and you are encouraged to engage in a furious clickfest to activate abilities and spells (literally, in Warhammer Total War) to tip the balance in your favor.

CA have been at it for two decades, however, and have yet to produce a working AI that can behave historically and pose a challenge to human players, and instead of increasing scale and an AI capable of handling the complexities of realistic warfare we've got a stagnant scale and increasing focus on fast clicking rather than deployment, positioning and movement.

This formula makes for a horrible historical simulation, but when you're pitting orcs against dwarves it becomes subsumed in the inherent silliness of the setting and does not stretch disbelief as much as seeing the battle of Adrianople fought by two thousand men on rollerskates. It's not nearly as tactical as WHFB, but it captures the aesthetic and, most of all, it's great fun.
 

Maculo

Arcane
Joined
Jul 30, 2013
Messages
2,313
Would you guys recommend this because of Warhammer or because it is genuinely better than the other TW tiles? I once played Shogun, MTW and RTW and got tired of shitty AI and general suckage, but just saw this getting a huge discount.
Both to an extent.

From what I recall of other TW games, diplomacy and the overhead campaign mechanics are more streamlined, but where the game shines is the battles. Each faction has varied Legendary Lords, troops, and magic, which are borrowed from the WH army books. With recent DLC, CA has gotten more ambitious with the faction mechanics. This becomes apparent when you compare the faction mechanics of TW1 races with TW2 races, which has led CA to update TW1 factions, such as the Dawi, Empire, Bretonnia, and Vampire Counts.

As far as Warhammer-lore, you will see strange outcomes, such as when the Dwarves confederate into a single faction, go Third Reich, and attempt to cleanse the continent of life. Meanwhile, my Malus Darkblade campaign stands for freedom (of slavery) against the Dawi tide.

If they're not trying to get the LOTR license, I have no idea what they're doing. Whatever their next big title is, it should be non-historical.

Average Manatee hit on the main point imo - CA needs a franchise that can replicate the DLC treadmill. Hence, I think the next logical step is Total War: Warhammer 40k. Other than Warhammer Fantasy, what else has that level of potential DLC?
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jan 7, 2012
Messages
12,062
From what I recall of other TW games, diplomacy and the overhead campaign mechanics are more streamlined

Don't really agree. Yes the earlier games tended to have more options, but they are also often functionally useless. Ohh, you vassalized someone in Shogun 2 and took their heir as a hostage specifically to ensure their loyalty? Still happy to backstab you a few turns later, even if Realm divide hasn't happened. Same deal with Medieval 2 allies even if you married your faction leader to their daughter. Rome 1 famously had this:

53B859ECE5C9DDEC6ABFA8759FB470BB340A9107


Meanwhile, in Warhammer if I have a non-aggression pact with people, the AI usually cancels it and then wait the 10 turns before attacking so that it doesn't get a diplomatic penalty with all other factions rather than notify me of the betrayal with an active siege on my capital by multiple stacks. That's great. The only exception is with the mechanic where someone you are at war with can invite other people to join their war, which seems to bypass this and is IMO just bugged, but you can get a mod to fix it. You can ally people and if you maintain good relations they'll usually keep it and join you in wars rather than randomly refuse, because the way it seems to work in previous games is that even with perfect relations your allies have ~20% chance to refuse which ruins the whole alliance eventually. You can therefore keep a stable alliance pretty much your whole playthrough, maybe your ally draws you into shitty wars, but that's the risk of any alliance. Even races that would normally be fairly hostile to each other can ally if you work at it. In my Isabella campaign I had the opportunity to ally with empire factions because they were so happy at me slapping Mannfred's bitch ass down. I didn't make the alliance because I want to kill them eventually and merely wanted an NAP with them so I could go after the dwarves early rather than get drawn into shitty empire civil wars, but the option was there and I'm fairly certain if I took it the positive relations from the agreement + from fighting the same enemies in war would be enough to keep the alliance going for most of the game. Good diplomacy should give you semi-predictable, semi-reliable interactions and agreements with other factions as long as you jump through the right hoops, which Warhammer does and which previous games largely didn't.

The earlier games had a lot of neat dynamic traits for characters, but in the end none of it really mattered (and Warhammer has a decent number of traits you can earn still). The only thing I miss on the campaign maps from pre-Three Kingdoms is a real population mechanic. Three Kingdoms of course as I've said multiple times has by far the best diplomacy in any TW game and needs to be copied into Warhammer immediately.
 
Last edited:

SmartCheetah

Arcane
Joined
May 7, 2013
Messages
951


Why bother using Snikch "delete faction" button, when You can basicly nuke one faction to hell with Ikit bombs. Ofc it costs a lot (imagine how much it costs to clear whole map after price nerfs) but seems to be more rewarding and fun experience.
 

AgentFransis

Arbiter
Patron
Joined
Jun 4, 2014
Messages
927
No, you will not. When you confederate you take ownership of everything that the faction has, including active armies. You do NOT get control of lords/heroes that are wounded. Have to wait for them to recruit him.
It seems you're wrong. I'm playing Malekith and just confederated Morathi and she's now in my wounded list along with a wounded Kahnite assassin I inherited.
 

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