Warhammer Total War: Warhammer 2

[vonAchdorf]

This

 

[rashiakas]

What is that little white dot at the bottom left of the screen? I noticed it too. Can CA not program their games to go fullscreen?

CA implemented this to see if a game is modded because they recieved many bug reports of modded games where people where claiming the game was not modded.

 

[Fedora Master]

What is that little white dot at the bottom left of the screen? I noticed it too. Can CA not program their games to go fullscreen?

CA implemented this to see if a game is modded because they recieved many bug reports of modded games where people where claiming the game was not modded.

Rule #1 of tech support: The user always lies.

 

[Fedora Master]

So, between this and Three Kingdoms, which is the superior game? I just finished Shogun 2 and I wanna jump into one of the newer entries in the series.

It depends on what you want from your game. Warhammer is very good and polished but in many regards rather primitive. No real character interactions and such, diplomacy is meh at best (SH2 style where it's mostly binary).
3K does characters and diplomacy much better but is overall not as diverse or engaging in its combat.

 

[CthuluIsSpy]

What is that little white dot at the bottom left of the screen? I noticed it too. Can CA not program their games to go fullscreen?

CA implemented this to see if a game is modded because they recieved many bug reports of modded games where people where claiming the game was not modded.

But that's dumb though. And really distracting.

 

[ekrolo2]

So, between this and Three Kingdoms, which is the superior game? I just finished Shogun 2 and I wanna jump into one of the newer entries in the series.

It depends on what you want from your game. Warhammer is very good and polished but in many regards rather primitive. No real character interactions and such, diplomacy is meh at best (SH2 style where it's mostly binary).
3K does characters and diplomacy much better but is overall not as diverse or engaging in its combat.

I'll go with Warhammer 2 then. No offense to anyone who likes diplomacy for these games but my approach to it usually amounts to "Who's my enemy today" and "Who'll be my enemy tomorrow?".

 

[vonAchdorf]

I'll go with Warhammer 2 then. No offense to anyone who likes diplomacy for these games but my approach to it usually amounts to "Who's my enemy today" and "Who'll be my enemy tomorrow?".

Mechanically, all the TW games don't support a different approach anyway.

 

[Average Manatee]

If CA doesn't implement 3K diplomacy for TWWH3 and all future TW games then they are 100% retard fucks.

https://github.com/msolefonte/tww2-victory-conditions-overhaul/blob/master/CHANGELOG.md

A mod that reworks victory conditions, this seems extremely useful.

What's the point? You declare victory when you feel like you've won. Unless its changing what the AI decides to go after or something I don't see the point?

 

[A horse of course]

So, between this and Three Kingdoms, which is the superior game? I just finished Shogun 2 and I wanna jump into one of the newer entries in the series.

I haven't played 3K, so Attila.

 

[AwesomeButton]

I've always liked Atilla for the same reason I liked Barbarian Invasion more than RTW - it's a very lucky time period to make a TW game for. The dramatism and the groundwork for creating epic stories are already set by the era itself. I always end up playing with Byzantium, regardless of previous plans, and being the lone bastion of civilisation in the barbaric storm feels more real than any sense of roleplaying I've got in any other TW game.

 

[Space Satan]

So, between this and Three Kingdoms, which is the superior game? I just finished Shogun 2 and I wanna jump into one of the newer entries in the series.

Go figure

 

[CthuluIsSpy]

So much for tapping into the Chinese market.

 

[Whipped Cream]

As far as I know Three Kingdoms did quite well commercially, with sales numbers similar to Warhammer 2. Its just that player numbers dropped off quickly because the Chinese and casual players only played it for a short while before moving back/on to other games, while most of the hardcore Total War players only played it for a short while before moving back to Warhammer 2, which is the better game and has far more replayability.

Thrones of Britannia was a total flop though.

The big thing that makes Warhammer so great is the absurd amount of unit variety that it has. Warhammer has dragons, zombies, vampires, werewolves, dinosaurs riding other dinosaurs, magic, cannons, sentinent ratpeople with machineguns and giant hamsterwheels of death, dwarfs with flamethrowers and beard armor, five-headed hydras with flame-breath attacks, warmammoths, giant orc golems held together by magic and orcdung and a giant toad wizard from space that rides a triceratops. And that's just a small selection of the massive unit diversity. Thrones of Britannia by comparison has dudes with melee weapons, dudes with bows and dudes on horses... and that's basically it.

Hopefully the next major historical game is set in the late medieval period, the historical time period that features the largest of amount of unit variety, and covers large parts of the world.

 

[tabacila]

3K actually sold a lot better than WH2. When it launched 3K had almost 200K concurrent players, compared to about 70K for WH2 at launch. But in a couple of months it crumbled to about 10K. Hell, according to steamcharts the max concurrent number of players for 3K managed to surpass the lowest concurrent number of WH2 players only during the launch of the last 3K DLC. It lasted just a few days.

Besides the diplomacy, the full city maps and some campaign features like character relations there's nothing really 'good' about 3K imo. The recruitment system is idiotic, the balance in battle is crap with archers dominating everything, duels are shit, romance mode is all about heroes that can rout entire armies on their own and the 'historical' records mode is a joke with women generals everywhere.

 

[Space Satan]

As far as I know Three Kingdoms did quite well commercially, with sales numbers similar to Warhammer 2. Its just that player numbers dropped off quickly because the Chinese and casual players only played it for a short while before moving back/on to other games, while most of the hardcore Total War players only played it for a short while before moving back to Warhammer 2, which is the better game and has far more replayability.

Thrones of Britannia was a total flop though.

The big thing that makes Warhammer so great is the absurd amount of unit variety that it has. Warhammer has dragons, zombies, vampires, werewolves, dinosaurs riding other dinosaurs, magic, cannons, sentinent ratpeople with machineguns and giant hamsterwheels of death, dwarfs with flamethrowers and beard armor, five-headed hydras with flame-breath attacks, warmammoths, giant orc golems held together by magic and orcdung and a giant toad wizard from space that rides a triceratops. Thrones of Britannia by comparison has dudes with melee weapons, dudes with bows and dudes on horses... and that's basically it.

Hopefully the next major historical game is set in the late medieval period, the historical time period that features the largest of amount of unit variety, and covers large parts of the world.

No, most units in WHTW are just standart Spearman, Archers and Cavalry with different skins.

 

[underground nymph]

I'll go with Warhammer 2 then. No offense to anyone who likes diplomacy for these games but my approach to it usually amounts to "Who's my enemy today" and "Who'll be my enemy tomorrow?".

Mechanically, all the TW games don't support a different approach anyway.

cannot agree. diplomacy was really important part of a game in Attila.Playing on legendary for slavs it was crucial in making it post horde invasion.
i did make it, only to be fucked later by some assholes from the caspian shores

 

[A horse of course]

The big thing that makes Warhammer so great is the absurd amount of unit variety that it has. Warhammer has dragons, zombies, vampires, werewolves, dinosaurs riding other dinosaurs, magic, cannons, sentinent ratpeople with machineguns and giant hamsterwheels of death, dwarfs with flamethrowers and beard armor, five-headed hydras with flame-breath attacks, warmammoths, giant orc golems held together by magic and orcdung and a giant toad wizard from space that rides a triceratops. And that's just a small selection of the massive unit diversity. Thrones of Britannia by comparison has dudes with melee weapons, dudes with bows and dudes on horses... and that's basically it.

This describes pretty much every single Total War before Warhammer, especially brainlet favourites like Shogun 2. Unit variety isn't as important as people think so long as the basic mechanics for sword/spear/bow/horsemanni result in dynamic and tactically engaging battles. In fact, the abundance of super-units and overpowered melee Lords in Warhammer detracts from the battles, as there are fewer tactical options for dealing with a 20 billion hitpoint demigod who can cast spells that halve your unit's hp in three seconds, than in dealing with a unit of elite heavy cavalry or swordsmen.

What's more, the "diversity" of factions on the campaign map can be a negative, as it means all factions are lacking in depth and some factions have just plain unenjoyable campaign mechanics for the sake of trying to be different. And all that faction diversity is meaningless on the campaign map when every single game you play devolves into the exact same Ordertide/Destructiontide blobbing.

 

[zapotec]

You nailed it perfectly

 

[wahrk]

What's more, the "diversity" of factions on the campaign map can be a negative, as it means all factions are lacking in depth and some factions have just plain unenjoyable campaign mechanics for the sake of trying to be different. And all that faction diversity is meaningless on the campaign map when every single game you play devolves into the exact same Ordertide/Destructiontide blobbing.

I’m not really sure how faction diversity makes the game have less campaign depth. That’s one of the main positives it has going for it. I’d rather CA attempt to make each faction play differently and have the occasional dud then whatever the alternative would be.

And yes Ordertide sucks, but claiming it makes faction diversity meaningless is a bit ridiculous. That’s a late-game issue and by that time you’ll already have conquered your corner of the map and experienced many different matchups.

 

[Average Manatee]

I don't think any faction has unenjoyable mechanics just for the sake of trying to be different. It's just the case that horde mechanics have been complete shit in every total war game ever which poisons two of the big evil factions. The only non-horde faction that is shit right now is Wood Elves and in that case CA is kind of bound by the lore since Wood Elves are basically supposed to sit in their tree land and be angry hippies.

 

[Fedora Master]

Part of the problem is that Wood Elves supposedly can turn up anywhere where there's a forest but in reality you are stuck in Athel Loren. World Roots need to be reworked, really.

 

[Fedora Master]

Finished my VH Grom campaign. Was pretty easy. Didn't even get a cheevo for it though.

 

[Average Manatee]

Part of the problem is that Wood Elves supposedly can turn up anywhere where there's a forest but in reality you are stuck in Athel Loren. World Roots need to be reworked, really.

According to the lore basically every faction can turn up almost anywhere because its just an excuse for any combination of factions to get in a fight together. Hence why there's elves around the Dragon Isles and the Empire expedition to Lustria, despite neither of those two things making any logical sense in this kind of game or world.

I'm not sure what would make more sense and be more fun for wood elves. Maybe if it was reworked into a vassal-focused campaign, like how Chaos can awaken Norscan tribes after conquering them? But, you know, the ordertide version of a vassal campaign. If you wanted to make the other wood elf factions outside athel loren playable you'd need to rework how the tree works and powers up, make it some kind of globally-usable feature of the faction.

 

[A horse of course]

What's more, the "diversity" of factions on the campaign map can be a negative, as it means all factions are lacking in depth and some factions have just plain unenjoyable campaign mechanics for the sake of trying to be different. And all that faction diversity is meaningless on the campaign map when every single game you play devolves into the exact same Ordertide/Destructiontide blobbing.

I’m not really sure how faction diversity makes the game have less campaign depth. That’s one of the main positives it has going for it. I’d rather CA attempt to make each faction play differently and have the occasional dud then whatever the alternative would be.

And yes Ordertide sucks, but claiming it makes faction diversity meaningless is a bit ridiculous. That’s a late-game issue and by that time you’ll already have conquered your corner of the map and experienced many different matchups.

Can you name a single Warhammer faction with the depth of the average historychad faction? Let's take two just TWO aspects of Total War's campaign and compare the average historical faction with the average fantasoy toy army:

Diplomacy:

All the same options, but even more worthless in Warhammer since most factions have extreme "aversion" penalties to racial enemies, will always confederate with factions of the same race within a certain period of time, and will therefore blob into Ordertide/Destructiontide (usually the former since Destruction factions often have aversion to both racial enemies, neutral factions, and each other) even before Shield of Civilization activates (which stays mostly secure even after the Age of Peace debuff, as most factions consider wiping out their -300 relations enemies a priority before they start stabbing each other in the back for lulz). Faction leaders will always stay exactly the same, so there's no point trying to assassinate them and hoping for a leader with different traits as is worth doing in some historical titles, or try to engineer a succession crisis like in Attila, or worry about your vassal getting a rebellious king. The only worthwhile addition is the High Elf influence mechanic, which only seems to be relevant to the player (a common thread in Warhammer, as we'll see).

Internal faction politics:

The average historychad faction has either a family tree, political offices, a fully modelled political system, or a combination of all the above. At least half of the history titles also feature a proper loyalty system of varying levels of complexity, such as Generals being more/less vulnerable to bribery and seduction in Rome 1 or Medieval 2, more/less vulnerable to starting a civil war or defecting to secessionists in Attila, or loyal to a specific political party and province in the Rome 2 update a couple of years back. 3K has a very complicated system I won't get into since I haven't played it. The best part is that a lot of this is not merely tedious micromanagement or busywork for the player (*cough* Thrones of Britannia *cough*), but a great boon to roleplaying and integrated into the game's other systems. For example, using princesses to steal top generals in Medieval 2, or assassins to wipe out a faction in Shogun, or agents to trigger a civil war in Attila, or securing a General's loyalty with political favours in Rome 2, and so forth.

Fantasoy players, on the other hand, have...uh...........................................................? You used to be able to assign political offices for Empire, but they had no internal faction politics so it was just a bunch of stat bonuses, then they removed it in the Empire update because Fantasoy players can't handle more than two extra buttons on the UI. This was replaced with an incredibly rudimentary Electoral system, which allowed for a bit more customization (Electoral offices) that seems to be only semi-implemented for the AI, and a bunch of random scripted events that bear no resemblance to what's happening on the campaign map and are even less responsive to emergent gameplay than the Empire of Man mod from which they were stolen. Still, this makes Empire players the brain surgeons of the fantasoy playerbase, since most other factions have even fewer options to engage with. Wood Elves still have political offices for their immortal, childless, unquestioningly loyal generals. Dark Elves, Skaven and Vampirates have a crippled version of the loyalty mechanic from historychad factions. None of the factions really have a civil war system or the mechanics that go with it, unless you count an army going rogue. None of the factions have a family tree, or a succession system. In short, the average historical faction has a bunch of different internal politics to play around with, whereas the average fantasy faction has either absolutely nothing or a half-baked version of a mechanic transplanted from a history faction, that could just as easily work with every other faction in the game but isn't present because they desperately need a low-effort player-only gimmick to make that faction "unique" - which is equally true of Warhammer's other campaign mechanics, like Skaven food, Bretonnian chivalry, Lizardmen locii or Dwarf grudges.

 

[thesheeep]

lolwut

This is what happens when people don't understand what a game is about and want everything turned into CK2-style medieval sim management.
The game is about the battles and the map-painting, not some simulation of empire management or dynasty shenanigans.

And it is about the incredible unit variety +magic instead of the 3-4 different units and no magic that you get in the historical variants.
There's just a ton more to battles in Warhammer than there is to battles in other TW games.
Those games might need more depth on the campaign map to make up for what they lack in depth on the battlefield. Warhammer generally doesn't.

I don't want to deal with bribery, spies, internal policies and whatever other bullshit detracting from the core of the game. There are other games for that.
Hell, I always use the mod that entirely disables campaign hero actions so that I'm not constantly bothered by the AI trying to assassinate my armies, do useless stuff to settlements, etc. And so that I don't have to micromanage a dozen heroes on the map doing mostly useless things, either.

I want the campaign map as a backdrop with very little management beyond settlements and armies. And that's what it does.
All it would need is a diplomacy AI that isn't just lolrandom, but I guess that will never happen.