A horse of course
Guest
The final battle is Grom invading Tor Yvresse.
-
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.
The final battle is Grom invading Tor Yvresse.
That's unfortunate, I had big hopes for WH3 but if that is the "rework" it would be pretty bad
A horse of course
Guest
Remember when people were speculating about the Underway before Warhammer 1? Or about the magic system? Or army painters and customizing your Lords?
Remember when people were convinced there were going to be naval battles in Warhammer II, because there was no way CA would have the chutzpah to represent the great battles of the Ulthuan and the Black Arcs with autoresolve? Or how CA were going to completely overhaul the siege battles?
The best course of action is to expect nothing from CA (and still be let down). They will do the absolute minimum required for Warhammer III (new factions with some inconsequential gimmicks) and r*ddit will slurp it up as usual. In Darren's old drunkstream he recounted how he said to upper management at CA that there was no way they were going to get away with the lazy copypasta siege battles, and was basically told "lol they won't care, they'll still buy it". And they were right.
I know, but since they've spent 4 years on this, I expect something substancial. We will see...consider this the last chance for CA to surprise us in positive
Tyrr
Liturgist
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2020
- Messages
- 2,641
I just attacked and conquered Tor Yvresse as Grom in FE. No special battle. Must be a Vortex thing.
downwardspiral
Learned
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2020
- Messages
- 131
It just works.
Warhammer 3 will have more mana bars, gimmicks and spreadsheet.
I want to defend CA. They are not lazy, they are good and busy at removing old features and mechanism before MTW2 to appeal to bigger market.
They are good merchant.
![[UCHIHA]XxDarkSasuke420xX](/forums/data/avatars/m/28/28856.jpg?1614816202){kind=avatar}
[UCHIHA]XxDarkSasuke420xX
Prospernaut
have they figured out how to make the graphics not look like grainy ass?
Disable sharpening filter in options and set antialias to 4x
It is only when playing Yvress because the point of that siege is to build defenses in your city, that's the "special battle"
Space Satan
Arcane
No. Shogun 2 still had glaring problms with formations and lines of sight. Plus lots of stuff from Empire they never bothered to fix. In WHTW2 if one hangunner out of 100 was engaged in melee then other 99 could still shoot, in both Shogun 2 and Empire 99 handgunners would pile in melee forgetting their shooting duty.Empire's problems were solved in Shogun 2.People starting connecting start into signs and we are at the point where it is no longer possible to define whether it is a joke or people actually do this.
I'd rather see Empire: Total War 2. Because most of its problems were solved in WHTW - units being able to hold formation, for example and artillery balance. Downsides are, of course, is that WHTW also balanced artillery with flying units and magic but variety of artillery and cavalry coult compensate. Shit, I still remember how your super elite shooters could be slaughtered bceause it will maneuver for minutes without firing a shot.
In WHTW2 you already can have purely gunpowder battles, for example between Vampire Coast and Empire and they are spectacular. This is cinematic but things like this coul be waged easily in-game
The only difference is that in Warhammer there are no "only two front lines fire" rule and and square of handgunners are VERY deadly in terms of damage potential. two-three gunpowder squres can wipe a dragon or a giant.
Empire's problems were solved in Shogun 2.People starting connecting start into signs and we are at the point where it is no longer possible to define whether it is a joke or people actually do this.
I'd rather see Empire: Total War 2. Because most of its problems were solved in WHTW - units being able to hold formation, for example and artillery balance. Downsides are, of course, is that WHTW also balanced artillery with flying units and magic but variety of artillery and cavalry coult compensate. Shit, I still remember how your super elite shooters could be slaughtered bceause it will maneuver for minutes without firing a shot.
The Total War engine is entirely unsuited to portraying any kind of post-Military Revolution warfare. This isn't a question of tweaking a few mechanics here and there, the system would require a complete overhaul and command would have to be at a higher level than the granularity TW players are used to.
Space Satan
Arcane
Aparrent leak
Last edited:
LizardWizard
Prophet
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2014
- Messages
- 1,012
Pretty hype if we're getting Dawn of War style campaign battles. RIP Relic
Last edited:
A horse of course
Guest
Aparrent leak
I saw this poasted on r*ddit, and posts that responded with terms like "Tower Defence" or "MOBA" were getting mass downvoted into being hidden.
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2019
- Messages
- 1,252
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2019
- Messages
- 1,252
Knowingly how haram this may be perceived, Total War will absolutely gain from the more maps reactivity.
downwardspiral
Learned
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2020
- Messages
- 131
TW's battle system can't even portraying Tercio in a pike and shot style warfare. I never get why people want 30 years TW without asking CA to fundamentally revamp the system.
The reason I am not into warhammer TW that much is because they have this cool pike and shot units yet no one is able to do any meaningful pike and shot tactics.
OOB and chain of command is something that would never happen in TW. Because historical TW players like to discuss things like spear vs sword too much.
At least we finally get a good RPG(?) in the form of TW now.
Not to mention that to this day we still don't entirely understand the minutiae of how various pike and shot formations functioned in actual practice, not to mention things such as caracoles, which were executed in battle despite the fact that they may seem baffling or unlikely to us. The best way to portray a Tercio would probably be to use a semi-abstracted model in which the unit is represented graphically but is not reliant on certain individual models being in certain places at certain times as that is a surefire recipe for chaos and a broken game.
As to why people want a 30 years war TW, they probably think the weapons and accountrements are cool. I don't think they'd enjoy the stately pace of battles, immobile artillery and the stodgy and somewhat toothless cavalry if they come from a Rollerskates: Total War background.
downwardspiral
Learned
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2020
- Messages
- 131
Agree.
That is the problem of ancient warfare as well. We don't really know how "melee" formation fight actually work. All we get is historian educated guess and some modern re enactment guess.
Like how long they fought, is it a push battle or other types of battle? do people stand off or actually engage like madlad ?How long they fought in melee before they break off?
I sometimes wondering this kind of question when I saw some random group machete street fight video. There are lots of phychological thing playing in those fights and extremely complex.
How could this mass psychology actually work when that sword and spear is really lethal but not just some re enactment toys?
Not to mention the completely guess work on how ancient cavalry actually charge. Always a mind blowing topic to me.
However, in ancient warfare, you could find some resemblance of formation/shape advantage /disadvantage that is written in historical books. If we don't focus on how melee actually fight in ancient warfare.
And when you model "two blobs of formation shape" melee fighting each other with abstract atk and def stats, How they actually "fight" isn't that important, essentially the entire ancient warfare in TW dodge most of the question and details.
It is bad, but not as bad as doing pike and shot warfare with TW model.
If you don't make pike and shot into one abstract single formation unit like most of the larger scale tabletop wargames, the player need to control both pike and shot separately.
And we can't even perform the educated guess pike and shot warfare.
We can't even dodge the "how they actually fought" question like in the ancient TW games. We need to actually control the pike and shot and perform detailed tactical move.
Which is immersion breaking for me.
I think for pike and shot warfare it is best to make mixed unit formation that is very abstract, however, that would not be TW anymore.
Exactly. Our lack of knowledge about how Ancient and Medieval melees actually took place, combined with the fact that pitched battles in those eras were comparatively straightforward affairs, allows us to handwave many of the complexities and be content with two lines clashing with each other until one side breaks. Furthermore, our knowledge of the structure of most armies is fuzzy and it is easier to accept troops being grouped into abstract "units" (rectangular blocks of 150 or so models). If anything, TW's main problem in dealing with those eras is that it does not account for the rigidity of Ancient and Medieval battle lines and the breakdown in command and control that ocurred after first contact, which would be frustrating for players.
When you move forward in time, however, things get complicated. Our knowledge of orders of battle increases, as does the complexity of armies, the physical frontage they occupy and the types of terrain deemed suitable for battle. Abstract "units" beome less acceptable, as what they represent is increasingly unclear. A tercio in bastioned square is very complex and cannot be represented by a rectangular block, nor can a Napoleonic regiment deployed in mixed order with a skirmish screen, and so the amount of micro-management required from a player to command even a division-sized force becomes exceedingly large. How could such a system work at the Army or even Corps level?
There is, in fact, a sweet spot for the amount of elements a player can effectively command, which is about twelve major elements, which translates into being able to provide detail two levels down. So say you want a Company level game, there are three platoons to a company and four squads to a platoon, that's 12 elements, the squad should be the smallest unit in the game. Same for Battalion level, assuming four companies to a battalion and three platoons each, the platoon should be the smallest unit of manoeuver, and so on.
And as you said, your average TW brainlet is too obsessed with useless details about equipment to accept Divisions or Brigades as his smallest unit to be able to play at the Army or Corps levels.
When you move forward in time, however, things get complicated. Our knowledge of orders of battle increases, as does the complexity of armies, the physical frontage they occupy and the types of terrain deemed suitable for battle. Abstract "units" beome less acceptable, as what they represent is increasingly unclear. A tercio in bastioned square is very complex and cannot be represented by a rectangular block, nor can a Napoleonic regiment deployed in mixed order with a skirmish screen, and so the amount of micro-management required from a player to command even a division-sized force becomes exceedingly large. How could such a system work at the Army or even Corps level?
There is, in fact, a sweet spot for the amount of elements a player can effectively command, which is about twelve major elements, which translates into being able to provide detail two levels down. So say you want a Company level game, there are three platoons to a company and four squads to a platoon, that's 12 elements, the squad should be the smallest unit in the game. Same for Battalion level, assuming four companies to a battalion and three platoons each, the platoon should be the smallest unit of manoeuver, and so on.
And as you said, your average TW brainlet is too obsessed with useless details about equipment to accept Divisions or Brigades as his smallest unit to be able to play at the Army or Corps levels.
Most likely, but I definitely wouldn't mind more "special" battles sprinkled in the campaign experience, not only for main objectives.
Last edited:
Space Satan
Arcane
A horse of course
Guest
Bloodthirster sounds like a random orc.
That's placeholder 100%
As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.