Can we rule the world? New info on regional occupation.

[StephanVos]

I don't mind it, I actually dig the idea of tying some factions to certain geographic features, although with so few of them the concept suffers (since you can only just conquer one or two types of factions, that's rather boring, and the replayability suffers), and specially since I can't help it but feel that this is not really the ideal gameplay concept they had in mind but just a temporary patch, yet another workaround. I have had that idea in mind for some time and Joey's statement makes me feel even more sure about it:




That said, although I do dig this kind of asymmetry, I'd rather have those faction particularities depicted as significant advantages/penalties rather than as plain, uninspired hard restrictions. Like, for instance, a cavalry-heavy faction struggling on mountains, or dwarves being unable to set strong defensive positions in empty flatlands and therefore having a hard time expanding there. As for the campaign map, it could be done in ways such as a human faction not being able to fully develop a dwarf mountain hold, or being much more vulnerable to the perils of such settlements, like skaven or goblin underground raids.

I still think their creativity is being vastly held back, most likely because of a lack of resources and the lack of will to change the engine significantly.

Agreed 100%!

[HigoChumbo]

So why exactly do we call this TOTAL war if we cant occupy the entire map. What a joke!

War ≠ Conquest.

You'll still be able to be in Total War.

[Lord Baal]

Also, I want you to look a peasant in the eye and try to talk him into living in the bad lands formerly occupied by orks and other unspeakable horrors.

Not only that, you must convince him of going there and build up his home from the ground up, in a virtually desolated wasteland, with almost no fertile land, scarce food and timber sources. So you'll be starving in a shanty made of dirt (and what I would presume your own tears), suffering under scorching hot by day, and freezing cold by night, all the while under the pending threat of the former owners or something worst coming back to reclaim that craphole.

Would you do it?

[|Sith|Galvanized Iron]

So why exactly do we call this TOTAL war if we cant occupy the entire map. What a joke!

A better question would be why it is called Total War when not the entirety of the nation's resources are directed towards the war effort.

It's just a name. How old is the dragon in Dragon Age? Why doesn't Duke Nukem have a vassal system? Why are you trying to escape from Castle Wolfenstein when the title orders you to return? Why are you not doing any theoretical work and spend most time off-campus in Jedi Academy? Why does Medieval 2 (the ps1 game) take place in the Victorian Era? Why does Baldurs Gate 2 take place in Amn and why can't you play as a fictional city? Why didn't the Worms series end with Armageddon? The does Tenchu mean? Why isn't Syphon Filter about plumbing (specifically installing water purification filters in pipes)? Why doesn't Dino Crisis actually... oh wait it does! Proof that games used to be better.

[Scamander]

The CA Powers have given two base arguments to defend the limited occupation model for the new game. There is also a third they present, but it is not highlighted as it's own discussion point.




The Lore Perspective Argument: This is how the stance was initially justified by the Devs. when answering fan questions/concerns. Below is taken from the Dev. Blog:


"With the exception of Skaven, no other race has ever occupied a Dwarfen Karak . Nor would it make sense for them to (yes, I know Neferata invaded the Dwarf city of Silver Pinnacle in -326 but this was a very rare exception to the usual paradigm. I’m sure a few other examples can be found in older novels, but in general it’s the Greenskins and Dwarfs that fight over the Holds). "


This is an odd couple of sentences. There is a categorical that no race, minus the Greenskins and Skaven, has ever occupied a karak, followed by a counter example that undermines the previous statement. The reader is then told as the larger point on restrictions proceeds " It would just feel wrong." This 'it feels wrong' seems to be the core of the lore argument. The Powers in trying to recreate the Warhammer Wordl (WH) and using occupation restrictions seems to be an attempt to capture a feeling or flavor of the game. This is not compelling. This does not match the lore, as the CA Powers admit with counter examples. The 'it feels wrong' view the is not lore, but sentiment. The best one could argue is there is a general pattern, but a general pattern is not an absolute. The occupation limit is a hard restriction on race action. Therefore, the decision the Powers opted for, does not match the Lore. The Lore argument is it's own refutation.



The Gameplay Perspective Argument: It is stated this is the fundamental or most important decision point. The base argument is that the imposed limit acts as a counter to a mid-game player steamroller. It therefore will keep the game fresh and new throughout the player's campaign. It will also enhance the flavor of each playable race. Only being able to raze or sack (RS) restricted areas, instead of the standard option of raze, sack, occupy (RSO) therefore is for the better. The core of this position is basically a less is more view. The oddity of this RS model is it is included in the RSO model. Everything the Powers mention as potential benefits are possible under the standard RSO, if the player wanted to go that route. Should a player want to restrict themselves geographically, they could. RSO does not require occupation. The player may want to raise, or sack or occupy, but the choice would be theirs. The root of the Gameplay Perspective Argument is to force the player to play one way, as opposed to any other. The powers have decided the 'steamroller' is bad, therefore, that option will be removed.




The Cool Aid Argument: There is a less flushed out argument that can be found in the Dev. Blog post section on addressing if every region capture is sacrosanct. It is mentioned that the initial resistance to the limited region capture by testers was resolved as they actually played, so much so, they now see the limits as a positive and the idea of being able to capture every region as moot. The cool aid argument can't be really responded to until one has actually tasted the cool aid. Of course, that also means one must have parted with their money in order to taste. A secondary option is to hold off until there is a larger body of reviews and comments by those who did drink. Barring waiting for a body of reviews to build, this is basically a 'trust us' position. Consumers will have to choose for themselves, based on prior models like Rome 2, Attila or their reactions to the paternalism of the limited region capture model presented by the Powers whether to buy or wait for reviews. From posts to the Dev. Blog it appears many have decided not to buy.




I am not convinced by the less is more argument(s). When the limited region capture model was first revealed, the most common reaction among posters was their hope there would be a raise and then colonize option. This is different from simple occupation and I assume would be a longer, more involved process. This still seems the better course to have taken.

[Person012345]

Also, I want you to look a peasant in the eye and try to talk him into living in the bad lands formerly occupied by orks and other unspeakable horrors.

Not only that, you must convince him of going there and build up his home from the ground up, in a virtually desolated wasteland, with almost no fertile land, scarce food and timber sources. So you'll be starving in a shanty made of dirt (and what I would presume your own tears), suffering under scorching hot by day, and freezing cold by night, all the while under the pending threat of the former owners or something worst coming back to reclaim that craphole.

Would you do it?

You offer them land. And yes they would. How do you think colonisation worked IRL.

I'm not against the mechanic, just saying.

[emcdunna]

I'd prefer the ability to take the land, set up a basic outpost (guard tower, garrison, etc.) there but have no food, money, resources, or other incomes from the land.

For instance, if i'm empire and I take karaz a karak, i'd be fine with razing it or whatever, but just let me use it as a fort to defend against orcs/chaos hordes coming my way. If it's like attila where you have to move away from the town immediatly after razing it, not able to use it for strategic (as opposed to economic) purposes, then that'd be annoying.

However when they add the west half of the world with elves, lizardmen, and probably skaven, then I think there'd be almost no territorial issues there at all. Dark elves want ulthuan, high elves would be fine conquering naggaroth.

[Sharpe]

I actually agree with the devs on this. The worst feature of TW is getting to that turn 200 phase and just being so obscenely powerful that you can just mass 20 stacks and roll over the AI, the fact that your expansion will be limited and your domain threatened by new types of enemies and scripted events adds a huge amount of variance to a stale late game. The best part of TW is starting a campaign and those first few desperate battles, what the devs are trying to do here is recreate that on a tight scale for a long period of gameplay. The thought of actually being on the defensive in a late game scenario is unheard of in the series.

There are over 10 other TW games you can play that are completely sandbox and steamroll friendly, I'm 110% behind trying something new.

I'm actually really damn buzzing after reading that blog a few times, some dynamism and the survival of major factions into the late game is a great change.

Not being able to capture every region doesn't make it less "Total War" - occupation doesn't mean Total War all of the time, actually destroying your enemies in this case does. War doesn't imply conquest, the defeat of your enemies does. Imbuing a faction with purpose in both a lore/gameplay perspective is something I've wanted for a long time.

[emcdunna]

People are just mad because it's a new idea, they aren't already used to it... they think it's just more cut-content (in other words all the fun you'd have conquering the empire as dwarves for example) but it's actually expanded content, as you just said.

Late game total war campaigns have always been a boring mopping up operation. This should be so much better in every possible way.

[Woody0]

It seems to me instead of painting the map your factions color until you get bored it will now be paint a certain set portion of the map your color and razing the rest until you get bored.

The screen shot in the blog shows a lot of settlements were razed. From what was shown it looked like the majority of the settlements were razed.

[DavidtheDuke]

It seems to me instead of painting the map your factions color until you get bored it will now be paint a certain set portion of the map your color and razing the rest until you get bored.

haha that's an amusing way of putting it. I don't think CA made a good case of why it'd be fun to not be able to conquer everything. They could've made a system where conquering certain places would just be n ot worth it because of penalties and the AI would never do it, but you could if you really wanted to.

[emcdunna]

It'd be better if simply the AI never did it, but you still could (but with penalties)

[LordInvictus]

Yes, there's less lands you can occupy, but it's a lot harder to take land in this game in the first place. First, there isn't a unit-tier system, so it will no longer be stacks of levy spearmen that you face, but units that are already mid to high tier and some that can wipe out multiple units by itself. Furthermore, Chaos invasions and Orc Waaaghs will likely create severe threats that you have to deal with. There's a lot more things that can set you back in the late game, as shown in Al's 300 turn campaign where he only took 10 provinces.

[Vanders]

it's hilarious how CA writes long-winded paragraphs explaining why restricted occupation is sooo lore friendly, but then at the same time craps on the lore with starting positions
perfect example of corporate hypocrisy.

Thus said, I rather like this decision, esp when concerning Dwarfs (though I'd have roleplayed it anyway)

Just what I was thinking. They can't use the lore argument here and abandon it elsewhere (cough *lords* cough), even if it also does make sense in this example (tbh it's better that they have acknowledged the wrongness of the Empire trying to set up in Karaks than simply ignoring the lore of that as well).

I am not wholly against this idea however, it actually sounds promising, but I'm not 100% convinced yet either.

[Abdülmecid I]

Well, if what CA wanted was to prevent the player from painting the entire map, then that's a really clumsy way to achieve that, although typical to her previous "solutions" to similar problems. CA is supposed to be an experienced and professional TW-developer, but they constantly show a total lack of creativity on this regard. Late game unchallenging?-Realm Didive. AI spams too many small stacks?-Limited Armies... They basically limit the game, so an obviously smaller in scope game has fewer problems, but I'd expect something more. For example, in Rome I it is essentially impossible to conquer some regions, due to be isolated and financially backwards. The distance to capital effect on public order (one of the most dynamic and realistic mechanics, which for whatever the reason, CA has abandoned) and the huge garrison would guarantee that keeping the settlement will either out right impossible or financially detrimental early on the game (in some mods, like the Thyssagetae in EB, some settlements were basically unconquerable, because of the larger map). Simple, dynamic (you could also move your capital, but that would mean rebellions on the other edge of the map) and realistic.

[|Sith|Galvanized Iron]

Distance from capital was a bad mechanic because the solution was obvious: everyone just moved their capital into the middle of the map. It also scaled poorly with mods and did not stop conquest at all. R1TW was last TW where I bothered with painting the entire map in one color more than once. The game even had second endings for total domination, so clearly it was intended to be fully conquerable. Public order was dealt with by always clicking exterminate and keeping the conquered population low by constantly recruiting peasants.

[Sharpe]

Can't believe the response here honestly. They try something new and interesting and you guys just freak out.

[HigoChumbo]

Can't believe the response here honestly. They try something new and interesting and you guys just freak out.

Well, the concept is certainly interesting, I'm just not so sure about the execution, but we'll see. To me, almost all the new things they are trying feel really limited in some way or another.

Seeing CA's explanations... well, there is a difference between theory and reality. I could say that the "paint the whole map red" mechanic is actually a creative masterpiece as it provides an underlying critique of the pointless bloodbath and suffering expansionism brings to people, and it would be a somewhat valid narrative, but it would just have nothing to do with the actual reasons why that system was created.


That said, I think I might enjoy this campaign more than any previous TW, since I have always been more a fan of survival than of constant, repetitive, mindless expansion, it's just that I feel that their creativity is being limited and that there is a disconnection between their speech and the real deal. It really feels as if they were trying to justify something not even them fully believe. As I said above, I find this kind of hard restrictions uninspired and probably a consequence of some kind of technical/design limitation. I'd rather have them achieve a similar asymmetric gameplay through bonuses and penalties, letting the sandbox shape itself in each game, but then again, they have to adapt every single thing to the engine and, specially, to the AI, which I imagine is one of the main reasons why everything so far feels simplistic and on rails.

[Lord Baal]

I still insist that is a good choice from their part.

If it were upon me, I would add that after conquering/razing you could "keep" the land the choice of building military strongholds of variant levels and kinds (depending on your race/faction and the place at hand) to simply deny an instant reclaim of the other players, or as a warning beacon that delivers intel or info.

In this sense, the magnitude of the buildings you build determinates the expenses you have to take, so for example, having patrol outposts on the bad lands would be expensive, while building and maintaining a fort there would be prohibitively expensive or simply impossible. Also consider that having armies permanently stationed there would drain your resources even faster and lower moral.

So you end with an option to "paint the map" but the region is really not yours, you only pay a few hardy riders to patrol the area and report back anything suspicious. Having this however will be a drain because of those regions you can't take much anyway.

In the case of dwarven strongholds you could say mining is an option, until you realize that almost everything would be dwarf sized and with dwarf ergonomics, never mind the architecture and machinery, possible traps, lack of light and creatures lurking there. So those strongholds could possible serve as stronger military outposts and medium fortress, but not much else. I wonder how many people would brave getting into the lower levels of an abandoned Karak, or worst a recently conquered Karak prone to be filled with vengeful traps and resistance.

Also consider this, generally, the mountain homes are in ranges and mountain chains, that are really away from your human towns and cities, which benefits could serve you to have a fortress that doesn't block the road, nor protect your cities directly? What do you say? Ahh mountain passages are a thing? Well, in that case, if you held a dwarven stronghold that serves as a passage trough the mountains then you are holding the exit, so be prepared to fight the enemy from within the fortress(which would turn the fortress into a killer trap instead). In case you hold both ends then some real strategic gains could be had indeed, but even then there's the possibility of the enemy finding other connections and tunnels or simply digging entry/exit tunnels from/to another place.

That is how it would work in the lore. The gameplay as we saw is, at least until now, pretty different, and armies that can go underground (goblin, dwarves) simply have a command and move trough the terrain, or at least that's what I last saw.

All the above is from the "human factions" point of view anyway.

However there's more or less an exception. Orks could and should thrive almost anywhere, just as they take the Karak and transform it into a orky version, they should take regular cities and virtually any place. The downside of this would be infighting, so as an ork player you could steamroll and conquer/colonize everywhere, but as you "empire" grows larger expect former parts of it to constantly rebel. Instead of painting the map of a single green, you'll paint it with countless splinter factions of varying sizes and strengths.

And so on...

[Akhenaton]

Well,I think for those people that are dissapointed by the limited number of region they can take will only find satisfaction when the map will be expanded by the warhammer sequels. That will be also when the game will show its true potential, I believe.

The problem is, we still don't know enough about the midgame to get a clear picture of what challenges the player will face. What will hamper the players expansion? Apart from Norsca and chaos hordes, what other dangers will await us? Are wild ork and goblin hordes going to be trouble? As an Ork faction, will I have to rely on raid and plunder for my economy? Will the economy in general be harder? And how the heck do VC and their corruption work, especially in regards to chaos corruption?

In the Devblog we saw a screenshot of Al Bickhams current plaything have at turn 300. He had only 11regions under control. Now is that because in the distant future, there is only war or because Al plays like well....like Al.....?