Originally Posted by
linuxmineboy
This post contains my thoughts on the history of the TW franchise as I see it, along with some initial reflections on Warhammer and the future of the series. I am an avid enthusiast of the Total War series, having played off and on since Rome TW and have purchased every game with every available DLC. I have played many mods for the series and love the vibrancy and diversity of the TW community.
When I first played the original Rome, I was stunned. The battles were so huge, so realistic (more or less), so tactical, and so immersive! This was a strategy game that combined turn-based, real-time, tactics, grand-strategy, and RPG elements. And for the first time a tactics game rivaled the more playful and arcade-like RTS games of the previous decade which had focused on economy and resource collection.
Perhaps most impressively, Rome was historical (again, more or less), and I have appreciated that in every TW game's own unique way, each have clothed their respective eras with a perspective and an artistic vision. For me (a history enthusiast) the joy of history is not in rote memorization and banal regurgitation of trivial minutia, but in the creative and artistic experience of entering into the historical dialectic (if you will pardon my mystical Hegelianism). It is exhilarating to discover connections, tensions, and questions, allowing me to enter into an era and allow the era to speak into my own age.
When Empire came along, I again was stunned. Naval battles? A new political system? And, most importantly, gunpowder weapons? Awesome! Of course, Empire had its problems. It was buggy, slow, often dull, unwieldy, and repetitive (darthmod fixed some of these issues, thankfully). And there were missed opportunities, notably the lack of any period music in the score (which remains a remarkably effective score for a video game, but some actual period music would've rounded it out nicely), and the lack of any real political reform mechanic (the president of the United States was essentially the same as the king of England). Also, settlements had subsidiary small towns that could be developed, but often there was only one choice and so developing became a "click chore." All in all Empire was magnificent, albeit broken.
Empire's "expansion pack" game, otherwise known as Napoleon TW, was another step forward. Most impressive, Napoleon TW envisioned the smoke-and-blood filled air of the passionate upheaval in late-Enlightenment Europe that centered on the dynamic personality of Napoleon Bonaparte. New smoke effects were incredibly immersive, and the mini-campaigns focused on goals and events gave motivation and drive to the wonderful sandbox world of TW. And despite the linearity to the mini-campaigns, it envisioned a sense of inevitability that I believe many felt in Napoleon's age. Napoleon is most certainly coming; it is a question of how and when. One of my favorite examples of immersion in Napoleon is the advisor's speech at the beginning of England's campaign: "those godless revolutionaries in France..." Which of course is a witty reference to English conservatism in the 19th Century. These details were wonderful.
Then came Shogun 2, possibly the most polished game in the series, although the least technically groundbreaking (with the exception of blood effects which were an excellent addition). Medieval Japan's battlefields and beautiful culture came to life in a sandbox that was as open-ended as Japan's history was. And Fall of the Samurai was a perfect expression of the questions plaguing Japan in the late 19th Century. Should Japan westernize? Is it inevitable?
What a beautiful game. Despite its lack of real innovation, Shogun 2 was gorgeous and polished. Everything just worked; although I use darthmod often with Shogun 2, it is rather unnecessary. I like the enhanced effects and larger units that darthmod brings, but Shogun 2 vanilla on its own is more than satisfactory. Its technical similarity to Empire and Napoleon was more than forgiven as Shogun 2 was a pleasure to play. Perhaps the most polished aspect of the game were the fortress siege battles, in which pathfinding bugs and difficult maneuvering problems that plagued Empire and Napoleon, while still present in Shogun 2, were remarkably reduced and non-intrusive. Almost everything about Shogun 2 is flawless, unlike the following title.
Following Shogun 2 was the gigantic, clumsy, beautiful, controversial Rome II. Unlike many people, I don't despise Rome II and actually play it more often than any other TW title. The Emperor Edition is not buggy and is quite immersive. Rome II's graphics are (in the end) very groundbreaking, envisioning an ancient world that is inhospitable, yet abundant in potential. The new political system (although not balanced and quite broken without mods) really pictures ancient republican and imperial Roman politics, reflecting the uncertain, ambitious, and back-stabbing personalities who inhabited it.
The streamlining of Total War's mechanics were questionable at first (and remain controversial), but I finally feel that it wins over certain aspects of pre-Rome II mechanics (come on, do we really miss diplomats?). The focus on bonuses was at once immediately graspable and yet difficult to master. Lastly, the modding community really filled in where CA neglected to: unit mods, overhauls, and minor fixes are abundant. I wonder if I spend more time searching for mods than actually playing the game.
But of course there were shortcomings, making Rome II hopelessly controversial. A horrendous release, DLC cash grabs, slow bug fixes, imbalances (e.g. Champions only have one useful and overpowered skill: Military Training), and some rather boring unit rosters created a game that never seemed to be finished, although it came close. I really hope that CA will develop a few final updates to Rome II, because it could be fantastic. But I probably hope in vain...
Attila, Rome II's sequel, is breathtaking. The apocalyptic vision of the fall of Rome (complete with historically and exegetically appropriate references from St. John's apocalypse in game cut-scenes) is awe-inspiring. Even the historically-uninformed player can enter into the world of cultures that would soon become the fragmented mosaic of medieval Europe: a synthesis of Roman, Celtic, Gothic, Anglo, Saxon, Frankish, Norse, and even Hunnic culture and languages, all accompanying the sorrowful decay of untainted Greek and Roman culture.
Attila is a fallen and improved Rome II. The world of Attila is falling apart, but the game is quite complete compared to its predecessor. The political system is overhauled and improved, balances made everywhere, and graphics improved in realism and detail. Also unit statistics are interesting in that they are balanced in such a way as to make battles unpredictable. Siege battles are improved as well: walls decay as sieges are prolonged, and defense mechanics like barricades are immersive and intelligent, albeit not balanced.
A few obnoxious choices in game design come to mind, however. First, public order is affected by local food supply, and not global food supply like in Rome II. So every province must have agricultural buildings. On the one hand it reflects the era's agricultural prominence. On the other hand, it makes designing provinces a chore. Secondly, the reused assets (especially in voice acting) is cheap. I got tired of Germanic and Celtic tribal leaders having the same things to say in diplomatic conversation as in Rome II. Lastly, the representation of Christianity as polarized east/west is misleading and anachronistic (the Pope in Rome and the Patriarch at Constantinople were in communion at the time), as well as stupid (East and West always end up at war with each other, regardless of the obvious religious and cultural similarities).
The Age of Charlemagne, Attila’s renowned expansion campaign DLC, had great potential, and is really quite fun. However, it lacks the immersion of any previous game. Reused assets are everywhere. Buildings on the campaign map make no difference in battles, as the building assets are reused from Attila. Units have models and textures taken from vanilla (not to mention the lazily crafted rosters which are so small as to make technological progress seem useless). This use of old assets is again a problem in Warhammer. Voice-acting, fauna and flora (some suspiciously similar to Rome II assets), UI design, sound effects are reused, and new assets are rare.
But first an overview. Warhammer is the first fantasy game in the TW franchise. I didn’t mind at all a divergence into fantasy (although I pray it doesn’t entirely replace historical titles), and had high hopes for a new vision. Warhammer is a great choice, allowing TW to envision a world of larger-than-life characters, cities, armies, creatures, and terrain. Everything in Warhammer is overpowered, making the differences between the races and the gods they worship seem irrelevant. This is a world of gods (probably explaining why religion is an almost non-existent mechanic in Warhammer). The races actually reflect many aspects of almost-forgotten historical consciousness, a valuable aspect of fantasy’s literary value. It is not difficult to see the Empire as representing Rome (the color red, the Latin word “Rex,” or king, embroidered onto Karl Franz’s robe, the German cross reminiscent of the Holy ROMAN Empire’s cross, etc.), the vampire counts as Britannic tribes (strange deathly religion, unhospitable and otherworldly terrain, etc.), the dwarfs as Norse tribes (associations with mountains), and Chaos as the unstoppable apocalyptic onslaught of the Hunnic and Mongol (Steppe) hordes.
My initial impression of Warhammer is a mixed bag. Positive impressions are that Warhammer seems to be a synthesis of many mechanics of previous titles: events and goals, politics, streamlined economy, focus on bonuses, etc. In addition, air units are an innovation, and diplomacy seems to work well. Magic seems to be a nifty feature (although I don’t have enough experience to say for sure). Faction leaders are finally as important as they should have been.
But the negative impressions are many. First, Warhammer feels like a reskinned Attila and by extension Rome II. Usually in past titles the engine and UI are redesigned every two titles. But Warhammer is surprisingly similar to Rome II and Attila in UI and engine design. The engine really doesn’t have many new features (with the exception of underground maps and air units, but these new features seem grafted on, as opposed to the engine being redesigned like it felt between Shogun 2 and Rome II).
Also, reused assets are more prevalent than I would hope for a brand-new game. Remember that Barbarian diplomatic voice-acting? Well, that’s exactly what dwarves sound like. The number of new assets is also disappointing. I felt that some smaller settlements don’t have dedicated maps (apparently the battles are fought miles away), but I’ve only played a few hours so I’m not certain. If this is true, I’m sure it saved CA a lot of money to develop appropriate town-models and maps.
Animations are also extremely limited. While improved in that the 1v1 “duel” style of animations is reduced, we seem to have returned to the original Rome approach where units wildly wave their weapons about and enemies die. Why not develop a hybrid approach, including developing “duel” animations that involve more than 2 participants? The animations currently sloppy (with the exception of cavalry impact animations, which are VASTLY improved). Hopefully this will be improved with updates (especially a blood and gore update, which really improved Rome II and Atilla).
Warhammer just has a disappointing lack of polish. Sound effects are not spatially-mapped well (units that are several yards away from the camera sound like they’re yelling into your ear). Graphics are buggy on my GTX960 (I know CA was working with AMD and that NVIDIA drivers are on the way, but still). Even on highest settings the graphics are disappointingly not very groundbreaking. There were moments in Attila when you felt as if you were there the graphics were so immersive, but in Warhammer the graphics are all inconsistent, boring, and coarse. For example, the color scheme is inconsistent (imagine a bright, primary-colored, cartoony Karl Franz as large as the incredibly detailed earth-toned tree he is hovering next to). Glints from armor and water, which helped make Attila look so realistic, are muted and disappointing. Even at 16x anisotropic filtering and highest texture settings, to me the units look about as detailed as Attila’s units, maybe even less. Most disappointingly, huge explosions from Empire’s artillery make no impact marks on the soil (we had this effect way back in Napoleon, why not have it now?).
Also, the streamlining of the economy has gone too far. There are no more taxation settings. Campaign-map resources are little more than trade tariff income-generators (no really complex buffs or enablers of buildings, units, or technologies). I was easily able to learn within an hour or so the Empire’s building technology to build the (not an) optimized province in the capital province. You can easily build almost every Empire building in one fully developed province, making expansion seem useless. Also, even though the map feels gigantic, in reality it has much fewer settlements than I was expecting, but hopefully the world will be expanded in updates.
In the end, after a couple of hours of gameplay I felt that Warhammer’s great vision is obscured in a mire of reused assets, graphics bugs, and boring design choices. But it could be great… I hope that updates will improve the game and make it as awesome as it promises to be. But why are fans being treated like beta-testers? Remember the good old days where games only needed one or two patches? In the end, I know Warhammer will be worth the wait once drivers, updates and DLC’s are released.
What do you all think of these thoughts?
Thoughts on history of TW and impressions of Warhammer
Reply With Quote
Figured that out for myself a few releases back. (S2TW, maybe?) Take a break and play Warhammer in a few months - maybe wait for a dlc. If you're a total war fan, you'll find something to like about it. Also, try another race. I didn't have as much fun with the Dwarfs either. Cheers!
Currently I'm reading "Barbarian Migrations and the Roman West, 376-568" by Guy Halsall and it's a refreshing look onto the timeframe. Attila has it's faults, especially the not so challenging CAI, but I can accept the limits of TW games. As always I play it in a modded form with slower battle speed etc., here with the great FotE mod among others. 
