Page 5 of 25 FirstFirst 123456789101112131415 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 500

Thread: Warhammer TW Wishlist.

  1. #81
    HigoChumbo's Avatar Definitely not Jom.
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Granada, Spain.
    Posts
    3,204
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: Warhammer TW Wishlist.

    Quote Originally Posted by Costin_Razvan View Post
    Yet units in Warhammer are not that powerful in range. Ogres are so strong they can shrug off bullets and arrows, you need to fight them in melee or use heavy artillery to bring them down. Warhammer does have good balance, far better then Total War ever had.
    Yet the reason for that is probably the (relatively) small model count that you have in tabletop Warhammer battles. If ranged units were too powerful, the games would end in a couple of turns, even before they reached melee range. But in TW the battles are larger (so units are more expendable), allowing for more powerful ranged units. Of course big/powerful units should be more durable, I would not like my badass Ogre or Dragon to be killed by a couple of arrows, but when it comes to normal troops, I think ranged fire whould feel powerful enough, and not just a small annoyance that can be perfectly ignored.

    That said I'm all in for extreme asymetry when it comes to this kind of rules. For instance, I'd want a volley of arrows shot by good archers to heavily decimate a band of goblins or human soldiers, for instance, but do absolutelly 0 damage to a steam tank or reduced damage to a big creature (or just give big creatures more hitpoints to compensate).

    It's quality vs quantity. Replayability can be achieved in a narrative driven campaign if it's a non-linear one. The Total War sandbox just wouldn't work for Warhammer.
    Well, let's see what they come up with. Warhammer lore, as far as I'm concerned, is developed to allow or make feasible all kind of engagements between all the different factions, so it's in some way a "battle sandbox". I think something can be done to create a sandbox strategy game, even if some stuff has to be reimagined (a task that Games Workshop carry out themselves constantly, so I don't see the problem). I'm curious about how CA will deal with this.

    There are examples of Warhammer games made into sandboxes to some extent with a decent success (For instance, the campaigns in Dawn of War (the one with the Tau), where you get a "Risk" board, which far from having the management complexity of TW (least Paradox Games) still allows for a basic sandbox gameplay, letting you create your own narrative as you conquer (or lose) provinces.

    Something so basic would definatelly be a disappointment given what I expect from a TW game, but proves that a sandbox game can be achieved to some extent in the Warhammer Universe.


    Remember that Warhammer is a battle game first and foremost, a business developed around selling miniatures and playing tabletop matches. Battles don't adapt to lore, it's lore the one that adapts to battles.
    Last edited by HigoChumbo; January 19, 2015 at 02:32 PM.

  2. #82

    Default Re: Warhammer TW Wishlist.

    Quote Originally Posted by Costin_Razvan View Post
    It's quality vs quantity. Replayability can be achieved in a narrative driven campaign if it's a non-linear one. The Total War sandbox just wouldn't work for Warhammer.
    It worked just fine for RotDG. You're not giving a good reason besides that you would really really like a narrative one. Warhammer doesn't have to have boxed-in story every time, I'd be fine with RotDG random armies and spells, with legendary item drops etc. I have read over a dozen Warhammer fantasy books and have played many different campaigns in RotDG. I felt at home with regard to the 'feeling' of being in Warhammer. The main things IMO that will have to be enhanced is monster and/or flying unit mechanics, characters, and magic. Diplomacy can take a little bit of a backseat for once, though I would like some infighting and even moddable potential war against dwarves and the elves, as it has happened before.

  3. #83

    Default Re: Warhammer TW Wishlist.

    Quote Originally Posted by Costin_Razvan View Post
    It's quality vs quantity. Replayability can be achieved in a narrative driven campaign if it's a non-linear one. The Total War sandbox just wouldn't work for Warhammer.
    I wholeheartedly disagree, now if CA wants to have both modes than that's fine, but the LAST thing I want to do is get pigeonholed into playing the Empire when I have no inclination to do so. Therein lies the issue with having a narrated campaign. They could maybe do a campaign like Dawn of War 2... but playing an EXTREMELY similar campaign with multiple races really isn't as "replayable" as one would think.

    There's plenty of room for scripted events in a sandbox type mode, it should be about freedom for the players to choose their method of play. We shouldn't get locked into some story a la Dark Omen/Shadow of the Horned Rat, not with TW's penchant for making nice maps for us to play on.

  4. #84
    Himster's Avatar Praeses
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Dublin, The Peoples Republic of Ireland
    Posts
    9,838

    Default Re: Warhammer TW Wishlist.

    Quote Originally Posted by Costin_Razvan View Post
    It's quality vs quantity. Replayability can be achieved in a narrative driven campaign if it's a non-linear one. The Total War sandbox just wouldn't work for Warhammer.
    Quantity has a quality all of it's own: a unit of goblins can beat a unit of ogres if the points are matched.

    I think they should increase the amount of units we can have in every battle but lower soldier count per units. Also go with only one size, not four that we can pick from. Balance CA, learn it.
    Not a bad idea.
    The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are so certain of themselves, but wiser people are full of doubts.
    -Betrand Russell

  5. #85

    Default Re: Warhammer TW Wishlist.

    Quote Originally Posted by Himster View Post
    Quantity has a quality all of it's own: a unit of goblins can beat a unit of ogres if the points are matched.
    They really can't.

  6. #86

    Default Re: Warhammer TW Wishlist.

    Quote Originally Posted by Costin_Razvan View Post
    Yet units in Warhammer are not that powerful in range. Ogres are so strong they can shrug off bullets and arrows, you need to fight them in melee or use heavy artillery to bring them down. Warhammer does have good balance, far better then Total War ever had.
    It really doesn't.

    If we're doing a wishlist - I'd like a 2 tier campaign map, with an underground section akin to Heroes of Might and Magic.

    There are vast under-earth battles fought between Rival Skaven Clans, Night Goblins looking for Fungus, Dwarfs who attempt to clear their holds of the Skaven and Goblins, and all other assorted horrors who slide into the tunnels to escape things like Witch Hunters, or the light of day, such as Strigoi Vampires.

  7. #87

    Default Re: Warhammer TW Wishlist.

    Quote Originally Posted by Son of Horus View Post
    It really doesn't.

    If we're doing a wishlist - I'd like a 2 tier campaign map, with an underground section akin to Heroes of Might and Magic.

    There are vast under-earth battles fought between Rival Skaven Clans, Night Goblins looking for Fungus, Dwarfs who attempt to clear their holds of the Skaven and Goblins, and all other assorted horrors who slide into the tunnels to escape things like Witch Hunters, or the light of day, such as Strigoi Vampires.
    While I too would like a 2 tier map, I don't think it's really possible to balance it. I would settle for burrowed army movement, with different values and strengths and weaknesses for each race capable of it. It really wouldn't be very player friendly to have to deal with a major skaven city planted directly below one of your cities, that could at any time attack with a huge force. I would rather they be sectored to start at either Hell Pit, Skavenblight, The City of Pillars, or Crookback Mountain. Then they have the choice of open movement, which is garnered its regular strengths and weaknesses, and burrowed movement, which is given a different set of strengths and weaknesses.

  8. #88
    HigoChumbo's Avatar Definitely not Jom.
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Granada, Spain.
    Posts
    3,204
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: Warhammer TW Wishlist.

    Quote Originally Posted by Theedge634 View Post
    While I too would like a 2 tier map, I don't think it's really possible to balance it.
    They could make it so the skaven (for instance) can't attack surface cities from their own cities. Maybe they could use some mechanism to promote sickness/assasinations/sabotage/unrest etc, but not attacking with armies. Then their armies would be able to access an underground network with corridors and choke points (somewhat similar to how the Shogun 2 area around the Takeda felt) which could be entered by some factions.

    This network would have several exits to the surface scattered around the map (outside the zone of control of cities) whose control could be westrled by the armies of surface factions. So maybe your Skaven stack wants to avoid a big Empire Army, so they go underground and might have to deal with goblins instead. Maybe they want to avoid a powerful rival skaven clan so they have to surface and maybe deal with some penalties, or having to force a fight against a surface faction who is cotesting the entrance to the underground network. That could be an interesting risk taking, decission making system.


    After all, you can't fight pitched battles in a city even if you can access it from below. So if a Skaven army wants to attack the city above theirs, they would have to surface with an army and go for it, maybe leaving some troops or agents or whatever in their own underground city to give them some sort of bonus while sieging (chances sabotage doors/defences, ability to deploy some units inside the walls, debuffing enemy troops inside the city, etc).


    I had not even considered this, so I'm just getting some random thoughts out of my mind.


    I would settle for burrowed army movement
    Burrowed army movement would look underwhelming, and also would take away one of the interesting features that an underground network would offer, like being forced to engage other underground armies which might be blocking choke points in the tunnels.
    Last edited by HigoChumbo; January 19, 2015 at 03:57 PM.

  9. #89
    Şiudreiks's Avatar Civis
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    36º 10' N, 115º 08' W
    Posts
    111

    Default Re: Warhammer TW Wishlist.

    This would be my wishlist:

    64-bit Engine
    Unit Collision
    Flying Units
    Chance for mishaps with Artillery and Magic
    Greenskins have animosity
    Sea Monsters as naval units
    Black Arks working as floating cities at sea similar to Attila's Migration camps (maybe limit recruitment to corsair units and monsters).
    Units to have a purpose within balancing (no streamlining like we find with Rome 2, cheap units have lots of men to off set their poor skill and moral and make them able to do something against elite units)
    Two Tiered map with the underground world of the Skaven's and Dwarves as well as the surface map.
    Three gaming modes, Multiplayer (with campaign options), Linear story mode (where it tells a predefined story similar to previous games like Shadow of the Horned Rat, Dark Omen, and Mark of Chaos), and a sandbox campaign map.
    Different Economy types, Greenskins should be based on food supply and looted materials instead of trade and money while other factions would work more traditionally.
    Everybody has opinions: I have them, you have them. And we are all told from the moment we open our eyes, that everyone is entitled to his or her opinion. Well, that’s horsepuckey, of course. We are not entitled to our opinions; we are entitled to our informed opinions. Without research, without background, without understanding, it’s nothing. It’s just bibble-babble. It’s like a fart in a wind tunnel, folks. -Harlan Ellison

  10. #90

    Default Re: Warhammer TW Wishlist.

    Quote Originally Posted by HigoChumbo View Post
    Burrowed army movement would look underwhelming, and also would take away one of the interesting features that an underground network would offer, like being forced to engage other underground armies which might be blocking choke points in the tunnels.
    Looking underwhemling is fine to me, as long as the mechanics are acceptable, I don't care. We need to remember that much of what is being "wished" for is simply very unrealistic.

    - Flying units are most likely not going to be in the game, at least not in a pure form. Dragons "may" work, as they could have the ability to strafe fire as an interaction with ground forces... but Griffon Lancers and the like?... Can you honestly look at Rome 2, and then imagine a Flying Calvary swooping down and charging into infantry in a reasonable looking/feeling way, as well, can you imagine how awful it would be to attempt to attack and defend against them.. it doesn't even sound fun in a total war setting. Now I could imagine that units with flight abilities could possibly be given a sort of jump on a solid cooldown that gives them a mobility boost over other units, but as epic as the imagination for flying units being solidly incorporated into the game, I don't believe it is possible with the current generation of Total War games, without looking like a glitched out mess.

    - I don't like the idea of 2 maps that overlap having different cities and strongholds that overlap, I think it's a balancing nightmare, and could be done more efficiently with something like a tunnel overlay on the current map. Click a button and the map view goes from normal to a shaded tunnel view, where tunnels must be expanded in provinces held by the controller by using units and resources. If you want to tunnel underneath an opponents major city, you have to spend time, resources, and spies (to keep it unnoticed) to do so. I really don't like the prospect of a vast underground empire at the very start of the game for a faction, especially when only other underground factions can prevent free movement of each other.

  11. #91
    HigoChumbo's Avatar Definitely not Jom.
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Granada, Spain.
    Posts
    3,204
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: Warhammer TW Wishlist.

    Quote Originally Posted by Theedge634 View Post
    Looking underwhemling is fine to me, as long as the mechanics are acceptable, I don't care. We need to remember that much of what is being "wished" for is simply very unrealistic.

    - Flying units are most likely not going to be in the game, at least not in a pure form. Dragons "may" work, as they could have the ability to strafe fire as an interaction with ground forces... but Griffon Lancers and the like?... Can you honestly look at Rome 2, and then imagine a Flying Calvary swooping down and charging into infantry in a reasonable looking/feeling way, as well, can you imagine how awful it would be to attempt to attack and defend against them.. it doesn't even sound fun in a total war setting. Now I could imagine that units with flight abilities could possibly be given a sort of jump on a solid cooldown that gives them a mobility boost over other units, but as epic as the imagination for flying units being solidly incorporated into the game, I don't believe it is possible with the current generation of Total War games, without looking like a glitched out mess.
    I don't see why the allpowerful CA could not achieve what some minor or less resourceful companies achieved more than 10 years ago. Games like Battle for Middle Earth (2004), Ground Control (2000) or World in Conflict (2007) have different working flying unit systems, and they are all quite good. Battle for Middle Earth in particular even has a very well done interaction between flying and ground units (like flying Nazguls grabbing a few land units with their claws, flying up with them, and then letting them fall into the ground). Given that it has already been done, with 10 less years of technology and overall less resources, I fail to understand why CA+SEGA cannot do the same, or even improve the system.

    Just look at this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEY4vf8PK0A&t=3m23s

    THAT is a game made in 2004. 11 freaking years ago. That thing ran in Pentiums (4). Anything less than that would be a disappointment. If CA chooses not to do that is probably out of lack of ambition rather than capability, because they sure can. By the way, that is a unit you have full control of, not a "deployable" such as the airstrikes you can use in games like Company of Heroes or World in Conflict.



    Other cool unit interactions of BfME:

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 




    Last edited by HigoChumbo; January 19, 2015 at 05:45 PM.

  12. #92
    Şiudreiks's Avatar Civis
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    36º 10' N, 115º 08' W
    Posts
    111

    Default Re: Warhammer TW Wishlist.

    Warhammer Mark of Chaos did a decent job with flying units as well (they had a prince on a Dragon, flying demons, Eagle, Harpies).
    Everybody has opinions: I have them, you have them. And we are all told from the moment we open our eyes, that everyone is entitled to his or her opinion. Well, that’s horsepuckey, of course. We are not entitled to our opinions; we are entitled to our informed opinions. Without research, without background, without understanding, it’s nothing. It’s just bibble-babble. It’s like a fart in a wind tunnel, folks. -Harlan Ellison

  13. #93

    Default Re: Warhammer TW Wishlist.

    Quote Originally Posted by HigoChumbo View Post
    I don't see why the allpowerful CA could not achieve what some minor or less resourceful companies achieved more than 10 years ago. Games like Battle for Middle Earth (2004), Ground Control (2000) or World in Conflict (2007) have different working flying unit systems, and they are all quite good. Battle for Middle Earth in particular even has a very well done interaction between flying and ground units (like flying Nazguls grabbing a few land units with their claws, flying up with them, and then letting them fall into the ground). Given that it has already been done, with 10 less years of technology and overall less resources, I fail to understand why CA+SEGA cannot do the same, or even improve the system.

    Just look at this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEY4vf8PK0A&t=3m23s

    THAT is a game made in 2004. 11 freaking years ago. That thing ran in Pentiums (4). Anything less than that would be a disappointment. If CA chooses not to do that is probably out of lack of ambition rather than capability, because they sure can. By the way, that is a unit you have full control of, not a "deployable" such as the airstrikes you can use in games like Company of Heroes or World in Conflict.



    Other cool unit interactions of BfME:

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 




    Yes, on a different engine... and completely different scale. I played BFME, plenty. I just doubt that fying units can properly be implemented into a total war ui/battle map. Referencing other games does no good, because they run on a completely different infrastructure. "If" they create a new engine for the game, they can probably get it to work... though I still believe it will look stupid and completely unbalance the game. I somehow doubt that the first game with a new engine will be Warhammer though. I'm thinking that they're likely going to use Warhammer as the final game on the current gen, with all the accumulated knowledge they've gained, while concurrently beginning development of the new engine for future total war titles.

    I think it's a bit naive to think that they will be able to make such a massive leap from Rome 2, to where they've completely incorporated flight and layers of combat into the game. If they do intend to incorporate all of this into the game, than I believe we are looking at them working on an upcoming World War title alongside, and that we will see neither game until late 2017 at the earliest. There's more 3d models in two squads in Rome 2, than an entire map of any of those games.

    I also remember when they tried to add flying units to Dawn of War: Soulstorm, they were completely awful and felt completely out of place. "If" they can implant flying units wonderfully, sure do it. But I'd rather have them left out, than to see them glitching around the battlefield, and seeing them cheese there way around the battlefield so that you can't kill them unless you have more/better flying units.
    Last edited by Theedge634; January 19, 2015 at 05:43 PM.

  14. #94
    HigoChumbo's Avatar Definitely not Jom.
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Granada, Spain.
    Posts
    3,204
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: Warhammer TW Wishlist.

    Quote Originally Posted by Theedge634 View Post
    Yes, on a different engine...
    A quick glance at any forums will show you that people would not preciselly mind if CA ditched the current engine.

    In any case... since when are we playing "Warscape: Total War"? I though game engines were made/adapted to satisfy the requirements of the game to be made and not the other way around...


    ...and completely different scale.
    A possible adaptation of the game scale has already been discussed in this same thread. In any case, yes, its on a smaller scale, and also running in 11 years old hardware...

    I think it's a bit naive to think that they will be able to make such a massive leap from Rome 2
    You mean... like the jump they made from Medieval TW (2002) to Rome TW (2004)?

    I also remember when they tried to add flying units to Dawn of War: Soulstorm, they were completely awful and felt completely out of place. "If" they can implant flying units wonderfully, sure do it. But I'd rather have them left out, than to see them glitching around the battlefield, and seeing them cheese there way around the battlefield so that you can't kill them unless you have more/better flying units.
    If you want to go to that kind of game, then just check how perfectly smooth and polished flying units in games such as Warcraft 3 or Starcraft 2 are.


    I just doubt that fying units can properly be implemented into a total war ui/battle map.
    Don't see why not, you have examples of other engines much more similar to total war with a proper implementation of flying units, both in the UI and in gameplay:

    World in Conflict helicopters: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoOeb7_DOIo&t=0m38s


    If you want flying units that can't hover, but are forced to fly in circles, then check Ground Control. All the planes you see are part of the same unit. The missiles are from the ground vehicles, the planes are actually dropping bombs (although there is also an attack bomber unit that fires rockets to ground units): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMgDJASV06M&t=12m0s

    This game was developed in the freaking 90s man.
    Last edited by HigoChumbo; January 19, 2015 at 06:28 PM.

  15. #95

    Default Re: Warhammer TW Wishlist.

    Quote Originally Posted by HigoChumbo View Post
    If you want to go to that kind of game, then just check how perfectly smooth and polished flying units in games such as Warcraft 3 or Starcraft 2 are.
    Boats barely work in Rome 2 *now*. Seeing them get right flying griffons that claw through ranks of beastmen seems a extremely tall order. Those two games you mentioned are by Blizzard, which is one of the most polished game releasers ever. Not to mention all those flying units won't need to understand which "chunks" of men to attack in a unit as they "fly by" or whatever mechanic CA will have to implement to make them work. They're probably going to stay if CA decides to do something with them, anyway, it never is up to us from what I can tell. It usually takes the next game to sorta-kinda get what we always wanted (like Attila).

  16. #96
    Costin_Razvan's Avatar Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Bucharest
    Posts
    1,870

    Default Re: Warhammer TW Wishlist.

    EA was able to do flying units well in Battle for Middle Earth.

    EA!
    "It's bizarre though. Donald Trump, an ageing, orange skinned reality TV star with a history of selling steaks and conning people, a trophy wife and one of the most fragile egos I've seen pretty much just destroyed the head of the interventionist faction in the US State apparatus, Victoria Nuland, after literally becoming President of the United states. We must live in one of the more interesting timelines."

    "The Powell Doctrine is the bible of every foreign policy thinker."

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powell_Doctrine

  17. #97
    HigoChumbo's Avatar Definitely not Jom.
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Granada, Spain.
    Posts
    3,204
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: Warhammer TW Wishlist.

    Quote Originally Posted by DavidtheDuke View Post
    Boats barely work in Rome 2 *now*.
    I'd much prefer if they focused in flying units instead of in boats. They haven't been able to make naval battles enjoyable (to me) yet, and that's not just because of bugs, even to the point that sometimes i just completelly ignore the feature (I have won a Takeda campaign in Shogun 2 without building a single ship). I do love the idea of reinforcements coming to land from ships though.

    Seeing them get right flying griffons that claw through ranks of beastmen seems a extremely tall order
    Never said it would be easy, just that it's perfectly doable. And CA definatelly has the resources to pull it off.

    Not to mention all those flying units won't need to understand which "chunks" of men to attack in a unit as they "fly by"
    I would leave those puzzles to programmers. I'm certain it can be done. I believe that soldiers are already individual entities inside of units in TW, so I don't see why it wouldn't work. In battle for Middle Earth (which you can see working in the posts above) soldiers are also part of bigger units, and doing all that works just fine. If not, I don't see why they can't change that (it's not like they are going to break the awesome AI we have now ¬¬)

    We should not confuse a publisher forcing them to release as many games and dlcs per unit of time as possible with a developer not having the capacity to pull a great game, even if that takes them a little bit longer to make and polish. I'd rather have a great game every 3 years than mediocre, forgetable games every year and a half.



    Quote Originally Posted by Costin_Razvan View Post
    EA was able to do flying units well in Battle for Middle Earth.

    EA!
    Nothing else to add. Also, hah.
    Last edited by HigoChumbo; January 19, 2015 at 06:58 PM.

  18. #98

    Default Re: Warhammer TW Wishlist.

    Quote Originally Posted by HigoChumbo View Post
    A quick glance at any forums will show you that people would not preciselly mind if CA ditched the current engine.




    A possible adaptation of the game scale has already been discussed in this same thread. In any case, yes, its on a smaller scale, and also running in 11 year old hardware...



    You mean... like the jump they made from Medieval 1 to Rome 1?



    If you want to go to that kind of game, then just check how perfectly smooth and polished flying units in games such as Warcraft 3 or Starcraft 2 are.




    Don't see why not, you have examples of other engines much more similar to total war with a proper implementation of flying units, both in the UI and in gameplay:

    World in Conflict helicopters: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoOeb7_DOIo&t=0m38s


    If you want flying units that can't hover, but are forced to fly in circles, then check Ground Control. All the planes you see are part of the same unit. The missiles are from the ground vehicles, the planes are actually dropping bombs (although there is also an attack bomber unit that fires rockets to ground units): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMgDJASV06M&t=12m0s

    This game was developed in the freaking 90s man.
    I guess we'll see, I think you're way too optimistic. I don't think there's any chance at all, that the current engine can handle unit flight. A new engine would be fantastic, but that would likely shift the game 2 years further out. I've played literally all these games, but I think the mistake you're making is a fairly obvious one. There's a COMPLETE and HUGE difference between designing a game around the possibility of flying units, and adding them in after the source infrastructure and code has already been written.

    When people were begging Relic for Tyranids in the 1st Dawn of War, they said they couldn't implement them because the game wasn't designed around the possibility of non humanoid animations. You'd think, what the heck are they talking about, I mean non-humanoid creatures have been in gaming for decades. But alas, they had to wait to implement them until Dawn of War 2. Adding in a new layer like flying units to a game that is built the way the Total War series is, would likely require major overhauls to the engine and code. As I have mentioned before I wouldn't mind a new engine, but I doubt that it will debut with the new Warhammer game, especially when you take into account the polarization the game is inflicting on the Total War community.

    I would also rather them discard the flying units if it meant more time modeling, skinning, and animating all the factions, and working on other more integral parts of the game. I don't want to end up with 4-5 factions with a couple of flying units, when the time that was used to incorporate those units could have gone into adding another 3-4 factions. I believe that flying units would be nice, but definitely would not be the main draw to the game. I think distinct con-specific economies and strategies will be the calling cards for this game. In my opinion when CA decides to add units with flight it will likely be related to a World War 1/2 game.

    Also, I feel consistently referencing old games with flying units is completely irrelevant, and really isn't conducive in understanding HOW they will be able to add these units to the game.

    Im not even sure that Rome 2 has a physics model to use for the flying units... I watch a video like this

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6KfEddfUjI

    And I see how little the elephants actually interact with the soldiers that they are attempting to trample, then I wonder how on earth are they gonna animate a Pegasus Knight swooping down at anywhere from 40-70 mph hitting infantry then flying back up... then I wonder, how high up are they gonna fly?... especially when we relate them to archer/gun range and accuracy in total war... that doesn't even begin to explain the EXTREMELY MASSIVE issue of aerial combat between monsters and cavalry. How are 20 Pegasus knights gonna fight a mounted dragon, look at that video and the quality of animation then try to imagine aerial combat.... yea, not unless we're looking at a completely new engine does it seem even remotely possible.

    As I've stated though, it really shouldn't be that big of a deal, the large majority of Warhammer battles you see don't involve flying units anyway... and they could totally get away with partial flight anyway... Since ground/air combat might possibly work in some instances... Example would be a circling flame strafe from a dragon who then lands at a designated location... as well as a sort of "Deep Charge" by flying cavalry where they charge on hoof until a certain distance where they jump and take low flight to get themselves deeper into an enemy line, in effect skipping over pike and spears.
    Last edited by Theedge634; January 19, 2015 at 07:02 PM.

  19. #99

    Default Re: Warhammer TW Wishlist.

    Quote Originally Posted by HigoChumbo View Post
    Nothing else to add. Also, hah.
    YOu keep acting like CA have shown great strides in how competent they are already. If they can get boats to only now, barely, properly dock on a fixed beach point, I have extreme doubts the more complex parameters to have a griffon attack with any semblance, dragon-fire strafing, etc. That is not "perfectly doable". It is extremely complex code and wall pathfinding isn't even solid, and things still feel wonky in something that is relatively basic as Rome 2.We left Rome 2 to the programmers, and it took almost a year of constant community feedback and now I'm just bored with it and most of the stuff, like I said, is now in Attila, the time period I"m NOT interested in.

    The Warhammer game should be early access IMO. I'm ready to pay alot of money for it and all the DLC coming down the pipe, I just have little faith in CA now.

  20. #100
    Lord Baal's Avatar Praefectus
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Republica de Venezuela
    Posts
    6,704

    Default Re: Warhammer TW Wishlist.

    All factions, no exceptions.
    Separated maps for above and underground.
    Proper magic and necromancy.
    Custom settlemens for everything!
    PROUD TO BE A PESANT. And for the dimwitted, I know how to spell peasant. <== This blue things are links, you click them and magical things (like not ending up like a fool) happens.
    Visit my utterly wall of doom here.
    Do you wanna play SS 6.4 and take your time while at it? Play with my 12 turns per year here.
    Y también quieres jugar Stainless Steel 100% en español? Mira por aca.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •