Would you call TW Warhammer a step forward?

[Bulk]

Do you think this game shows the direction in which future TW titles should go? Do you find it an improvement over previous titles? What do you think can be transferred to a historical setting?

[gyabo]

Its debatable but the game is really good. CA simplified some core mechanics of TW in this game. Like siege and remove some cool features of TW.

Diplomacy has been improved in my opinion. BAI totally quite improve due there cavalry can now do hammer and anvil. Each faction felt unique compared to previous TW games not w/ there units but w/ how i can play them.

[Fanest]

I hope noting will get transferred to historical settings apart from 1v1 unit animations.

Game is just dumbed down in almost every aspect. Most of new solutions they came up with did not fix old problems but circumvented them like new siege battles mechanics for example. Naval battles are removed, religions, taxes, sanitation/diseases, family tree, political system, diplomacy, public order, corruption, building chains, governors all this things that made campaign more challenging, made u spend time on campaign map managing ur provinces to your liking are for the most part gone or heavily dumbed down.

Not to mention ridiculous battle pace - watched some recent tournament battles and most last between 2-3min.

[PROMETHEUS ts]

No , its a step back , much back , they got the right formula on Shogun II , since then they started dumbing down and make poor game design decisions .
The game is entertaining couse of the col factor of units and fantasy setting , but in terms of gameplay is a huge stepback .

[Metallistic]

In terms of character progression, combat dynamics, collision and optimization - definitely.

In terms of sieges, economic management and multiplayer - no.

[tuli]

Best game since Medieval 2. They took out the tedious yet meaningless micromanagement like governors (who cares, their effect wasn't felt) and focused on more important things like the feel of the campaign and battles. Unit redundancy issues were also addressed, for example Outriders aren't a straight upgrade from Pistoliers since the latter will do better vs. targets with little armor. BAI is much improved. There's some problems like always (agent spam, whackamole armies etc) but it's definitely a big upgrade. People who complain are doing it just to whine, certain posters on this forum have basically profiled themselves as eternal whiners.

[hionmaiden]

Most people reviewing the game on Steam and review sites do not look on this site. I'm sure most of us will agree that the game is very very very poor in what we have recieved. It's not just a dummed down version of the previous titles, it is completely worse in a few aspects.

Animations are extremely poor, especially considering range units have no reload animations. Also there are no kill sychs. Even Med 2 had those!!! I could continue with a list of negatives but it wouldn't make a difference as most of us here will have seen the bad points of the game.

I leave it in Dresden, and his teams hands to make the game what it should be tbh. Even if CA release the other factions I doubt we would get the full map with every faction. so Modders will be what cures the game.

They have copied Bethesda for some part, blank state game only offering core mechanics and graphics, and let modders fix/make the game what it should be at release. Remember this game was not in development for that long, so that can be a sign of the poor amount of content we are given.

[Fanest]

They took out the tedious yet meaningless micromanagement like governors (who cares, their effect wasn't felt) and focused on more important things like the feel of the campaign and battles.

What a bunch of nonsense, governor presence was heavy felt specially in combination with ancillaries. For instance they could give huge anti corruption bonuses, public order, religion pressure, growth etc.

[hionmaiden]

What a bunch of nonsense, governor presence was heavy felt specially in combination with ancillaries. For instance they could give huge anti corruption bonuses, public order, religion pressure, growth etc.

+1 So many core mechanics have been removed to make their job so much easier. I thing Sega and Games Workshop have made them reduce the development time to make more money faster, not only that but so many things that were good are now gone. And even things that were in the previous games have been made worse. I can't see how the game is getting 9/10 on review sites. just a load of bollocks. Seems most people are oblivious to the matter. This is one of the worst total wars to date.

[JaM]

Personally, i think CA just continue stripping their games, making them childplay easy, dull. I have no intention buying Warhammer TW, while i even kinda like Warhammer games, mostly 40000.. for fans, i think Warhammer Armageddon is much better strategy game than TW ever will be.


CA terribly needs new blood, with new ideas, that would reform the game mechanics to be more interesting... they are getting into dead end.

[tuli]

What a bunch of nonsense, governor presence was heavy felt specially in combination with ancillaries. For instance they could give huge anti corruption bonuses, public order, religion pressure, growth etc.

None of which can be observed without going to the panel. A total nonsense feature.

[Humble Warrior]

I guess it`s official then. CA hates sieges. Completely.

I`m kinda glad there`s no ship battles at all as they were pretty ludicrous with their insta-ship armies and caused all kinds of stupidness.

If they could`ve had it like Shogun 2 it would`ve been one I might`ve considered, even with its fantasy slant.

[SPARTAN VI]

I can't say it's a step forward for the overall franchise, but it's not a step backward either. They made huge strides in making the game more accessible to non-Total War gamers, which is a clear priority for anyone who ties-in a world renoun IP such as Warhammer into their product. I'd also give them huge amounts of credit for bringing Warhammer fantasy to life. Granted I'm no loremaster, I've read enough Warhammer novels and played enough Warhammer games to know CA nailed it.

That said, coming from Attila, I can't help but miss the feature-rich campaign mechanics, even though much of it may not fit in Warhammer. It's also easy to nit-pick the game to death because it's such a stark constrast from what we've grown accustomed to (e.g. super powerful sniper towers, asymetric sieges, lack of town battles, battle pacing). Overall it's a solid offering that's a huge hit in all the vital places with some tragic misses in more minor areas.

[Fanest]

None of which can be observed without going to the panel. A total nonsense feature.

As for province panel where all effects are listed, i didnt know that ppl have such a hard time opening this panel. UI could be better for sure but if u expect to play strategy without opening a panel from time to time then i dont know why u bother playing them at all.

[Fallen851]

And I thought I was the most negative person on this forum.

CA definitely took out a lot of campaign map features, but they added a lot of things too, like quests and mastery trees. And they added a considerable amount to the battles, and the battles are the meat of Total War. And that is where the game really shines to me.

Honestly we can talk all day about all the strategies and tactics of Attila and Shogun ect... but it is the same stuff over and over. People think they are brilliant because they use the hammer and anvil and hold hills, or use a staggered or weighted battleline. It just gets old over time. Warhammer really brings some good stuff.

There is so much more depth and opportunity to show skill in battles in Total Warhammer than any other Total War game (except sieges which are terribly done).

[Bigbossbalrog]

First impressions are a thousand times more postive.

And the people whining in this thread? I dont think they even bought/played the game.

It's a massive step forward.

[GrootOpperhoofd]

Can't say I miss a single feature from the previous games. If I want to play a deep, historical game, I look at Paradox games or Ageod or anyone else not TW. TW games never had enough depth for me to care enough when they get cut or 'dumbed down'. They're graphical showcases of 'tactical' combat (made much better in games like Scourge Of War...)with strategic overlay being an afterthought. Empire TW is the only one that had some ambition of increased strategic depth but for w/e reason they never repeated that and it's easy to see why.

[EdmireDragonbane]

As a player who mainly focuses on multiplayer combat, and went through Rome II's horrid release, I have to say they're doing a good job with this one. Am I entirely happy with it? Not really, I feel like there is so much more they could add to richen the feel of multiplayer (town battles, revamp the North Korean roster (Brits), make siege battles more "open". But when it comes to the meat of it, I'm very happy. I enjoy how my cav look like they're actually making a difference in a battle, I like the combination of using magic with gunpowder. I like how each faction is distinct to each other, and how you have a pretty good amount of freedom in unit rosters to make an army your own.

Another is how battles cannot be won just by using "basic" tactics alone. Hammer and Anvil's will work but you have to take in account the large beasts that beat down your army. I'm enjoying multiplayer because each battle is a learning experience about faction strengths, weakness', and what units best beat my opponents.

But as a person whose played countless campaigns with friends, I honestly never enjoyed Rome 2's, or Warhammer's campaign one bit. It just felt bare bones and I was always heading back to Shogun II to enjoy campaign. (I have not played Atilla so I cannot comment).


In terms of multiplayer i'd give it a bit of a step forward, but with the limited battle choices in terms of not having towns, and sieges feeling cramped it takes a step back. In terms of campaign it's a step back, but i've felt the stepback point was Rome II anyway. But i'm having a huge blast with the game even when I've never played a war hammer game, or read up on the lore before.

[Huberto]

@OP - Depends on whether Warhammer gives CA permission to restrict the dumbed down, arcade features to its fantasy games. This would give the historical titles breathing room to be more authentic and deeper strategically. This is my prayer anyway. TW historical definitely fits with strategy and realism mods it's not just rock-paper-scissors tactical battles and twitch.

[Påsan]

They did a lot of things right for the warhammer universe. The setting is not about population control and food production, its about endless war, simple as that.

The next historical title? No scrap it all and start over. Next to nothing of the new features in the warhammer game have anything to do in a historical title.