Anyone else hating fantasy/warhammer Total War games?

[Incendio]

Probably some of you know my points of view and reasoning. Despite I do not have an education background in History, neither I don't work in something related with history, I spend most of my free time reading books covering historical wars/battles and playing "historical" pc games (or at least based on historical facts), you know, when Total War saga made content for "adult" and "mature" people. Yes, I will be radical, even if I get banned. I completely dislike Warhammer Total War and other fantasy topics. It's been a long time we don't get an historical based game and also we don't even know any detail about the next release. I noticed that gaming industry neglects and ignore historical gamer fans, there are very few historical titles! and almost nothing at the level of Total War games in terms of graphical details. There are so many amazing historical periods to cover, but seems that Total War is more focused on unrealistic/fantasy/childish games. May I find other people sharing my opinion?

[Diamat]

To each his own. While I share your sentiment, I fear the market is speaking. But I'm sure there will be more games oriented toward audiences like ourselves in the future, even if it isn't made in the name of the TW series. By delaying a historical installment in the series, CA is only opening itself up to another developer coming up with a potential counter to the series. Too bad it hasn't really happened yet, but it certainly could.

[zsajak]

Yes I hate them, I just pretend total war games do not exist anymore

[Huberto]

Yes it is annoying. The first thing is CA's conceit that, even though there are separate teams, only one game at a time and real information is on offer -- as if the historical fans are perfectly happy going deep on fantasy two years running. The other thing I find worrisome is the continuing simplification and streamlining of features in the name of quick battles, flashy factions, heroes, leveling up fast and army rosters. Faction diversity for the sake of replayability rather than replayability because of good strategic experiences with the game. My worry of course is not about Warhammer but that creative assembly will continue down this path in its forthcoming historical titles.

[Commissar Caligula_]

I dislike Warhammer because they dumbed down the campaign to such an extent that although the rest of the game is quite good (apart from siege battles), it just ruins the fun. The only reason I'd dislike the Warhammer games in general is CA might think they can get away with dumbing down the historical titles, otherwise I don't care as much. The Warhammer games bring in lots of new fans, which means more money to CA so hopefully future titles will be bigger and better.

[Ekster]

You're not the only one, Incendio. I'm hoping for the return of good historical TW titles as well.

[♔atthias♔]

well every game since empire sucked any with that limited building system
and the one general is one army since RTW2
warhammer make building a city less of a core since it deleted the stuff from ATW and RTW2 so building a profitable city is possible without having to swap building because of food and squalor

if they give us unlimited building slots like in RTW1 and MTW2 then I am open ears for stuff like that but not with the system we have now

[NorseThing]

Well even in Shogun there is quite a bit of fantastic unit abilities in the darker counter intelligence units in the game. Even RTW had potential to go in this direction, but the designers had restrained themselves. When M2TW came out, the fantastic was starting to take hold with canon mounted elephants and other such silliness. The market did speak and I am not tone deaf. Part of this is driven by what I call chrome. Yes chrome. As in big fins and shiny pieces of chrome that may annoy the purist and do not change the operation efficiency of the underlying engine. I love M2TW despite the chrome. Modifications of the game can serve the purpose of the chrome and fins for those who want a bit more fantasy. Today with Warhammer and especially other non Total War titles, chrome has definitely taking the genre over since the actual designers of the games want to make some coin off of what the public will pay to play. The pendulum will swing back with time. I can still work with my tin soldiers and work out Napoleon taking an Italian bridge until I die or things get to be more historic though.

[Kraut]

It´s not that I "hate" Warhammer... is it just not my cup of tea.
It is not even "no fantasy for me" - would the setting have been LotR or GoT, I probably would have pre-ordered.
I am just not into the Warhammer setting, never been into it much.

So that´s the reason why I strongly would prefer a historical title, and I am eagerly waiting for the next big one.
However, I fear the WH trilogy will be CA´s sole priority for the next two years?

Anyway, I think the WH Setting indeed does fit the TW games quite well... so although it is not MY cup of tea, obviously many fellow Gamers are pretty happy with it.

[Mayer]

I haven't got into Warhammer and i would be more interested in a historical setting, but this is not the main reason i skipped WH:TW. I'm under the impression of the negative reviews which mention stuff like casualization, removed features like formations and burning arrows, also sieges are apparently horrible with only one piece of wall and a couple of minutes battle.
And frankly, it's just too expensive with all the essential factions being locked behind DLC. I may take a look at it when Steam drops the price by 75% and i get the full package for a reasonable price.

[daelin4]

The gaming industry will go for markets that produce more consumers. It just so happens we're in a fantasy trend these days and something like Rome is overdone. If companies like CA, or Apple for that matter, can't afford to please everyone, they'll please the most people for their benefit. You calling the products childish doesn't mean to them, it's money that talks.

As for Warhammer, I played it like any other TW game. Some elements are certainly disconnected like dragons, but if you play as Dwarfs you practically play it like any other TW game since their magic works like regular generals' buffs back in Shogun2. That's the good thing I can say about Warhammer, they've designed certain factions so they're not too different from the conventional Total War experience- some factions require a very "fantasy" mindset to really get into, but others are more about your usual teching up to get good guns and overpowering the enemy. Orcs come a distant second, though I'm sure I'm missing out on some important advantages by ignoring their magic side.

I think CA made the right move in that direction, because it allowed them to innovate and open up different methods of game design. If they just churned out historical titles forever there'd just be no incentive for any real creativity. I would go so far to say Rome2 is the example of that, there are some Rome2 elements in Warhammer that I really dislike so I'm not some die hard WTW fan.

[Kraut]

if you play as Dwarfs you practically play it like any other TW game since their magic works like regular generals' buffs back in Shogun2.

How does the magic work for other factions? Do they have a wizard as "second general unit" (or several wizard units) with weak melee stats but powerful.... well, magic? Needs the wizard micromanaging or does he "auto"-use his magic?

[Commissar Caligula_]

I haven't actually played as dwarves, but if I recall correctly all of their "magic" is just buffs for your own troops, or debuffs to enemy troops like daelin4 said.
Other factions can have wizards as their general, sometimes even as their Legendary Lord (eg Balthasar Gelt for the Empire or Mannfred for the Vampires). There are a few different Lores of Magic, which rule what type of spells they can use. Eg fireballs, a giant foot that stomps on troops, spawning flying manticores, slowing enemies down and general buffs/debuffs as well. Wizards are generally recruitable as normal agents though, so long as you have the right building tree.

Magic works via "Winds of Magic" which change every so often. Eg in one particular area of the map you might start a battle with high winds of magic, whilst other areas have low magic. At the start you can gamble to try and roll a higher magic, out of 20 or 30 I think but you can end up losing quite a lot of your magic. Spells use magic from this magic pool, and the lower your magic is the longer it takes to recharge.

[Huberto]

I think CA made the right move in that direction, because it allowed them to innovate and open up different methods of game design. If they just churned out historical titles forever there'd just be no incentive for any real creativity. I would go so far to say Rome2 is the example of that, there are some Rome2 elements in Warhammer that I really dislike so I'm not some die hard WTW fan.

From my perspective, the creativity and innovation WH brought to the table are fantasy units and things like streamlined fantasy battles; so new animations and streamlining basically. This doesn't appear to be an incentive to make historical games better and more innovative games. Historical games don't require such things. Moreover we've seen with TWR2, streamlining in the name of commercial appeal can be disastrous to games. There are a million new ways for historically inspired games to be creative and have appeal, while staying true to the genre and being great without resorting to fantasy elements or less features. This kind of lazy WH centric thinking - that fantasy TW is good for new ideas or better historical games -- may indeed wreck historical TW. I can't help but see those motives in that kind of thinking.

[daelin4]

How does the magic work for other factions? Do they have a wizard as "second general unit" (or several wizard units) with weak melee stats but powerful.... well, magic? Needs the wizard micromanaging or does he "auto"-use his magic?

To be honest I'm not as interested in the details of the other factions since they do not interest me. As I said, the way Dwarfs do their magic stuff is far more like generals' buffs in previous TW games: activate an ability to gain X abilities for your unit(s). There are a few offensive type spells like lobbing a fireball out of thin air (sorry, magic), but I honestly prioritize on the former; it's not like you will gain a heavy disadvantage when playing the game the fancy spells, especially given you've a long line of gunners shredding the enemy at a distance like in Napoleon.

The few times I use other faction's spell's, it's your usual fantasy fare: spells that damage other units via some fancy graphics, slows them down, knocks them all over the place, blah blah. Basically the way Diablo 3, Starcraft 2 and WoW handles the magic ability stuff. I like it only in those games so naturally I find it undesirable to use them, or for that matter play in manual battles since those are bound to occur. Thank goodness for auto-resolve.

All in all there is the element of the basic Total War in this game, so for that I'm satisfied, if not in the least minimal manner. They don't get 7/10 for having it, though, games far from perfect and there's plenty to complain about (diplomacy offer spam, for instance). If Dwarfs acted just like Wood Elfs though, that's automatic 0/10 for me.

As for Winds of Magic, Dwarfs are a "non-magic" faction in the sense that they actually don't utilize Winds of Magic (at least the spells I bother to use), so you don't ever have to worry about that secondary metre; all you need is to wait for your characters to cooldown. Again, this is typical Total War basics, and I think this is lore-friendly as Dwarfs use Rune magic instead of "true" magic.

From my perspective, the creativity and innovation WH brought to the table are fantasy units and things like streamlined fantasy battles; so new animations and streamlining basically. This doesn't appear to be an incentive to make historical games better and more innovative games. Historical games don't require such things. Moreover we've seen with TWR2, streamlining in the name of commercial appeal can be disastrous to games. There are a million new ways for historically inspired games to be creative and have appeal, while staying true to the genre and being great without resorting to fantasy elements or less features. This kind of lazy WH centric thinking - that fantasy TW is good for new ideas or better historical games -- may indeed wreck historical TW. I can't help but see those motives in that kind of thinking.

Let me clarify by stating that "that" direction I mean diversifying faction design so that they act in a very asymmetrical fashion. In Rome2 you can really ge away with playing the same manner and same builds for many factions- I know because I played it myself. In Warhammer however you cannot play Wood Elfs the same way you play as Dwarfs, because they are simply not designed that way. CA knew that they can't get away with copy-paste factions so they really needed to crack their heads open for some innovation. It's a step in the first direction, if not one that practically required a hard kick to start: you can bet your arse that if they stuck to historical titles they'd not have any incentive. And I get GW had a hand in this direction as well: the game can't be the same stale churnout.
Furthermore with the knowledge that these new ideas and features work and sell, they now have the confidence to do the same with historical titles. True there is potential that they pull it off poorly and wreck historical titles, but that honestly has much to do with confidence and a willingness to try to make it work, than the fact that the games where they got it from had a fantasy theme. At least Dwarfs don't operate on the "hard" fantasy elements like other factions do.
There are other things that exemplify the step in the right direction, but the one I'm most concerned with is faction design. They've set the bar to new heights with Warhammer's, now they simply need to replicate the innovation in future titles. Depending on the specific theme this can be easier or harder, but hey, that's how you stay ahead of the game.
This is no guarantee of good future titles, of course, for all we know they might try to fall back to old habits and just make a Medieval 3 that's laughably bad you might as well call it Warhammer but they're all Bretonnia. And CA fell back....twice.

[Huberto]

Let me clarify by stating that "that" direction I mean diversifying faction design so that they act in a very asymmetrical fashion. In Rome2 you can really ge away with playing the same manner and same builds for many factions- I know because I played it myself.

Many famous historical struggles that CA would base a game on used very similar military approaches historically, including the struggles depicted in Shogun and NTW.

If that makes replay boring, then the campaign and battle play needs more work. Relying on asymmetrical factions can be an excuse to skimp on building out good tactical and strategic game play. It may also cover up for bad BAI.

I honestly don't care about whether factions are different, as long as they are historically accurate. That's because even in epic historical eras dominated by similar militaries, like the Hellenistic Age, there were battles that changed the world fought by armies. So give me phalanxes, and add a few kinks, like Elephants, Triremes etc., and as long as the battles are dynamic like a good RTS, and we have unique features and mechanics based on the historical era. we should have the basis for a great game mirroring a complex military and political struggle.

[nilloc93]

i'm a big warhammer fan and TW:WH lets me forget about how the warscape engine is, and makes the new campaign system bearable so its ok by me

[Baldos]

YES I refuse to buy Fantasy Total war. I own every TW game since Shogun 1 up to Rome 2 and Attila including every add on. However I have not nor intend to buy Warhammer 1 not 2 nor the 3....

If SEGA ever wants to get another $ from me the better rewturn to historical games. For now I will buy game from Pradox.

[Dismounted Feudal Knight]

I'm a long-time player of Diablo and a few other fantasy titles, and certain forms of fantasy I can certainly get into. I never considered Total War to be fundamentally compatible to fantasy. But Total War has been on a trend for a while now, and Fantasy is just another curve in the road.

I'm not one of the developers, and so my opinion on what the game is comes purely from a record of playing the games, but I consider the charms of TW to be the campaign map/RTS merge and the well maintained historical aspect. Perfectly historical, no. Total War has never been a perfect series. Unless you go full fanboy on me, there's never been a perfect total war game. I'd say a combination of all the best total war games would come close to a perfect game, but no total war game has ever hit that perfection level. However, it stayed true to the roots of its mechanics for a while, and that's what kept me with the series. Empire changed that, to an extent. It dumbed down some elements, simplified others, made a (in my opinion, poor) attempt to be a sort of "world wide" total war concept, and was ultimately too grand to really stand out. I played it for a short time before it lost my interest. Future total wars took pages from Empire more than anything else. I can get enjoyment out of, say, Rome 2, but there are elements to a game like Medieval 2 that I will never find in Rome 2.

Warhammer is a deviation from the original design of Total War. It's all well and good that TW wants to diversify, but I can't call the Warhammer line a true total war game in the same league as other total war games. Does it affect me? Not really. I've been stuck in 2005 for quite a while as far as Total War is concerned, anyways. And honestly, I look at the big picture, and don't see that Warhammer is a huge change.

The developers insist that there's two separate teams, but I doubt it's really as split as they make it out to be. One game becomes the child of the company, and anything else is just a side project with little focus until the one game is released. Total War has been deviating for a long time. It's changed between Medieval and Rome, Rome and Empire, and Attilla and Warhammer. The game has changed. I don't know if I can say it's really evolved, as it's gone down a different path in each case with a tie to the roots. When looking at how Total War changed in different years, I can't say that Warhammer is really a huge deviation. There was already a big shift when Total War became all guns for a while before returning to Shogun. The fantasy shift, when considering how the dynamics of Total War has changed already, is really not so dramatic to me. I think it's farther than any other total war game when it comes to maintaining the old TW charm, though.

Long pointless rant aside, I don't hate Warhammer Total War (though I never liked Warhammer, fantasy or sci-fi) and CA can work on it if they wish. I do wish, myself, that they would make a game that looked at the old and the new aspects of TW and made something good out of the now rather large pot they have to draw from (so to speak).

If we're looking at the "trend of twos" as I've taken to calling it, it is time for a change. Shogun and Medieval, Rome and Medieval 2, Empire and Napoleon, Shogun and Rome 2 (with the big expansion they titled Attila) and Warhammer + Warhammer 2. I suspect they're going to try and expand to something else entirely. China, perhaps. I'd like a return to the Medieval legacy, but at this point, it's all speculation anyways.

Again, no interest in Warhammer, so I don't think I'll get it unless someone just gives the games to me for free. In that case I'd play it just to see what changed.