So lets talk about Warhammer...

[DavidtheDuke]

Quite honestly, I think the exact opposite. Rome 2 has huge marketing budget that no other TW ever had.

What makes you think Warhammer won't be bigger? They already have 2 expansion packs planned and announced. That CGI trailer may have cost more than Rome 2's announcement? (hard to say there, could be tied) Lastly, we have no idea what other marketing campaigns they have planned.

And, again, the resources required to cover all the artists and developers necessary to get all the new mechanics of a Warhammer TW seem obvious on the face of it. It requires everything in the historic TW but even more complex.

[jtfjtfjtf]

As for other fantasy games repeatedly mentioned:
ASOIF: basically just medieval 3, needs INCREDIBLE amount of diplomacy, very few factions and cultural differences. The only thing it has going for it is a good plot.
Dragon Age: only 3 or 4 factions/races. I think that speaks for itself.

ASOIAF and Dragon Age both have quite a few factions that could fill a TW game. In ASOIAF in Westeros there are 8+ factions with 4 cultures. And then in Essos there are the free cities, slaver cities, Dothraki, and various kingdoms. Dragon Age has 12-ish factions.

[Markas]

'TW games are too buggy and rushed!!!'

*CA announces Warhammer game*

'This game will lower the quality of TW games!!!'

This combined with those citing the TWC survey (and even somehow using the fact the minority don't like fantasy as supporting evidence) of a tiny percentage of TW players makes me think there's some very limber mental gymnastics going on.

There are so many actual valid concerns they could have why is it they choose the most vapid which inevitably boil down to 'I don't like fantasy and neither should you' and 'It won't work just because'.

[xjlxking]

What makes you think Warhammer won't be bigger? They already have 2 expansion packs planned and announced. That CGI trailer may have cost more than Rome 2's announcement? (hard to say there, could be tied) Lastly, we have no idea what other marketing campaigns they have planned.

And, again, the resources required to cover all the artists and developers necessary to get all the new mechanics of a Warhammer TW seem obvious on the face of it. It requires everything in the historic TW but even more complex.

Right now, all we can do is assume. But I highly doubt they will pour as much money as they did on Rome 2. More likely, they will have to lower it considering they also have to get the license and what no for the game. No to mention Sega been doing all that great.

[♘Top Hat Zebra]

Right now, all we can do is assume. But I highly doubt they will pour as much money as they did on Rome 2. More likely, they will have to lower it considering they also have to get the license and what no for the game. No to mention Sega been doing all that great.

They've had the license for years now, and Sega considers CA to be one of their most important branches.

Total War Warhammer has the chance to be quite likely the highest selling Total War game ever, by a considerable margin, so it's unlikely they will skimp on the budget.

[Tullaris]

I strongly prefer the Warhammer universe above ASOIAF/Game of Thrones or LOTR or anything else. The Warhammer universe is just more interesting from a army variety point of view. Games workshop has been working on these army lists for 30 years. CA does not have to invent any units or strategic flavour. It's already there. They just have to translate it to the game.

[VltimaRatio]

What a ridiculous complaint. *cries* 'this grimdark fantasy tabletop game isn't realistic enough'


No. And when has CA ever done proper politics? If you want a proper ASOIAF game play the CK2 mod.

1. No one's crying that a grimdark setting isn't realistic enough, it's just a matter of personal taste. "Less is more" in a way. IMO it would be a better kind of grimdark if the visual aspect (mainly the monster factions, I like the artwork for a lot of the factions) was less exaggerated and more believable. The tabletop element excuses this, and I get that being believable was never the point of Warhammer at all, but it's not something I particularly like about Warhammer. The background setting being over the top with the sense of the world hovering on the brink of destruction I actually don't mind, even if it's taken pretty far. I just prefer less cartoonish visual styles as a general thing. And if I came off as anti-Warhammer, I'm not even against this game, and I actually liked the Russian Warhammer mod for Medieval 2.

2. They haven't, but it's not inconceivable that they could do better than they have before. I'm aware of the CK2 mod but this is about TW games with battles as well as campaign aspects.

[Abdülmecid I]

I am not going to imagine HOW CA is dividing this team and your presumption of knowing how they organize their employees is a pretty damn stupid exercise.

Toho, haven't you realised that all your posts are based on your presumption of knowing how they organise their employees? That''s what Will said:

Well, Total War was built on a tradition of historical eras, and we’ll continue to do exactly that. Total War: Warhammer is being developed in parallel with our historical titles by a dedicated team.

A rather vague statement. It could mean anything, from your claims that there's complete independence between the fantasy and the history team to what I find much more probable, based on common sense and my knowledge about how the private sector works: I believe that their structure is very flexible and the guy who designed the Slavic peltasts for the next DLC in the morning is going to design the boar-mounted orcish guard in the afternoon. When the last DLC is released, all the employees will join the Warhammer team, which will begin to gradually decline in numbers, when the last WH DLCs are released and the new historical title is about to get started. Of course, that's just my personal estimation, but I'd suggest always critically processing the information you're spoonfed, or otherwise we're going to experience the R2 drama ad infinitum.

[Charerg]

I'd like to add that the concept of "everyone at war with everyone" can be as much a curse as it is a blessing when one considers the Warhammer World as a Total War setting. Consider, for example, you start the game with a faction in Attila...and are at war with everyone at the start. Would that really make for *that* interesting of a campaign?

Diplomacy is a very important aspect of TW that ENRICHES the game, not something I feel should be diminished (on the contrary, I think this aspect of TW has a lot of room for development). Also things like the internal structures of states and such are important matters that haven't necessarily had the focus they deserve. I think TW could benefit a lot if a more fluid political system could be designed and implemented, allowing different forms of government to be established in various regions, and peaceful integration of client states into your faction. Also the ability to undermine the political structure of your enemies through indirect means like supporting rebellions could open up new strategic options.

Note that in many ways the above points are true with Warhammer as well. For example, to truly play Chaos I feel the player should be able to spread heretical cults, convert some nobles into chaos worship and so forth. Also internal politics should vary a lot between various factions.

What they'll probably do is to break the various "races" into several factions to mitigate these issues. But I have to wonder if the aforementioned issues of diplomacy and internal politics will get the attention they deserve? Or are we going to see a game with very "watered down" features when it comes to the strategic map? If so, will even excellent battles be able to salvage the gameplay? It's a known fact that the vast majority of battles are autoresolved in TW, because they're often too one-sided to be really worth fighting.

Now, I'm not saying that Warhammer TW doesn't have the *potential* to be a great game. I think it could...if handled right. But I do hope that CA won't become too engrossed in the whole "war everywhere" idea, and forget that battles and RPG features alone are not nearly enough to make a succesful TW title.

[daelin4]

I'd like to add that the concept of "everyone at war with everyone" can be as much a curse as it is a blessing when one considers the Warhammer World as a Total War setting. Consider, for example, you start the game with a faction in Attila...and are at war with everyone at the start. Would that really make for *that* interesting of a campaign?

That is a terrific design for a faction...but certainly not ALL factions. It reduces the strategy element towards a single paradigm, one where you are really just avoiding to fight others. This may be avoided by CA through considerable amount of deviating from the Total War style of gameplay (think Battles:Kingdoms where battles are and kingdom management is reduced to simple mobile-games style).

Diplomacy is a very important aspect of TW that ENRICHES the game, not something I feel should be diminished (on the contrary, I think this aspect of TW has a lot of room for development). Also things like the internal structures of states and such are important matters that haven't necessarily had the focus they deserve. I think TW could benefit a lot if a more fluid political system could be designed and implemented, allowing different forms of government to be established in various regions, and peaceful integration of client states into your faction. Also the ability to undermine the political structure of your enemies through indirect means like supporting rebellions could open up new strategic options.

Considering the design of Total War and how they managed them since Empire I have little reason to believe they will make anything meaningfully interesting from the lore or even practical perspective (think both Attila and ROme2) when it comes to faction management. Again to cite Battles: Kingdoms, you just manage buildings and resources, then manage units and battles. If anything Warhammer would just replicate that formula. In fact I would prefer it that way since the work is less (for an "independent" team, which BTW does not imply much especially for budget), no diplomacy, no politics, just units and some resources and you fight everyone.
This leads me to believe that no special mechanics around things like Chaos Cults or Waagh! will be present, at least not in the first titles, which will certainly be feeler products (or open beta/ concept art where they gauge how things can go in the next title).

What they'll probably do is to break the various "races" into several factions to mitigate these issues. But I have to wonder if the aforementioned issues of diplomacy and internal politics will get the attention they deserve? Or are we going to see a game with very "watered down" features when it comes to the strategic map? If so, will even excellent battles be able to salvage the gameplay? It's a known fact that the vast majority of battles are autoresolved in TW, because they're often too one-sided to be really worth fighting.

Again, I see the Battles: Kingdoms formula working out more practically than some complicated system of trying to abide by lore and practicality. It makes more sense from a CA and business perspective since it is simple, and no reason to believe that they'll bank on the Warhammer and Total War brand for sales, and also no reason to believe it will therefore be a success. People will still support CA sine there's no other titles similar to TW and blind faith.

Now, I'm not saying that Warhammer TW doesn't have the *potential* to be a great game. I think it could...if handled right. But I do hope that CA won't become too engrossed in the whole "war everywhere" idea, and forget that battles and RPG features alone are not nearly enough to make a successful TW title.

It will be a "great game" because it will be designed to sell well, not because it actually is a great game. As far as CA is concerned Rome2 and Empire were great games. It's really just a matter of priorities here. They are trying to diversify their company portfolio through making many sorts of games spanning broad genres and styles to anchor themselves from being shut down by SEGA. Everything about them screams financial survival by emphasizing what sells. They're good at it, really; it just happens to piss many customers but they neither don't care nor can really afford the risk.

[Zipzopdippidybopbop]

If they're using Warscape (again), it will be a disappointment. That engine is a joke.

[Toho]

Toho, haven't you realised that all your posts are based on your presumption of knowing how they organise their employees?

no the presumption is how they divide their team and their time management. We will never know how they do and to presume they will somehow lower the quality of their other products because they are working on their new product is pretty damn stupid anyway you spin it.

That''s what Will said: A rather vague statement. It could mean anything, from your claims that there's complete independence between the fantasy and the history team to what I find much more probable, based on common sense and my knowledge about how the private sector works: I believe that their structure is very flexible and the guy who designed the Slavic peltasts for the next DLC in the morning is going to design the boar-mounted orcish guard in the afternoon. When the last DLC is released, all the employees will join the Warhammer team, which will begin to gradually decline in numbers, when the last WH DLCs are released and the new historical title is about to get started. Of course, that's just my personal estimation, but I'd suggest always critically processing the information you're spoonfed, or otherwise we're going to experience the R2 drama ad infinitum.

anything could be possible on how these teams are organized, the point of the OP post of this thread was how will they manage a game where the amount of detail and scope of the game far surpasses anything they have ever done. This was answered when they said they will only be doing 4 races at a time.
Besides debating how they divide their team, their time allocation and so on is again. very stupid. it achieves nothing, it is pure speculation and at the end of the day what is going to happen? CA is going to reverse their plan? its just a stupid topic to fight/debate over.
There is one note however, if CA is going to allow their quality of other products be lowered because they take on a new project then they don't deserve to be in business.
I think that what the irrational fear of some people like Huberto comes from. It's stupid but what can you do?

[DavidtheDuke]

Right now, all we can do is assume. But I highly doubt they will pour as much money as they did on Rome 2. More likely, they will have to lower it considering they also have to get the license and what no for the game. No to mention Sega been doing all that great.

That remains to be seen, and the license may have or may not have cost alot. GW could be doing a royalty deal instead of something upfront. Either way, IF CA/SEGA skimped on resources to shore up money for a WH TW license, then this will be a giant failure and another reason for me to always wait for 75% off. Rome 2 definitely taught me never to preorder.

They've had the license for years now, and Sega considers CA to be one of their most important branches.

Total War Warhammer has the chance to be quite likely the highest selling Total War game ever, by a considerable margin, so it's unlikely they will skimp on the budget.

Yeah, the youtube views indicate it may at least be double the sales of Rome 2, given the rate of views it is getting.

[jtfjtfjtf]

I'd like to add that the concept of "everyone at war with everyone" can be as much a curse as it is a blessing when one considers the Warhammer World as a Total War setting. Consider, for example, you start the game with a faction in Attila...and are at war with everyone at the start. Would that really make for *that* interesting of a campaign?

Diplomacy is a very important aspect of TW that ENRICHES the game, not something I feel should be diminished (on the contrary, I think this aspect of TW has a lot of room for development). Also things like the internal structures of states and such are important matters that haven't necessarily had the focus they deserve. I think TW could benefit a lot if a more fluid political system could be designed and implemented, allowing different forms of government to be established in various regions, and peaceful integration of client states into your faction. Also the ability to undermine the political structure of your enemies through indirect means like supporting rebellions could open up new strategic options.

Note that in many ways the above points are true with Warhammer as well. For example, to truly play Chaos I feel the player should be able to spread heretical cults, convert some nobles into chaos worship and so forth. Also internal politics should vary a lot between various factions.

What they'll probably do is to break the various "races" into several factions to mitigate these issues. But I have to wonder if the aforementioned issues of diplomacy and internal politics will get the attention they deserve? Or are we going to see a game with very "watered down" features when it comes to the strategic map? If so, will even excellent battles be able to salvage the gameplay? It's a known fact that the vast majority of battles are autoresolved in TW, because they're often too one-sided to be really worth fighting.

Now, I'm not saying that Warhammer TW doesn't have the *potential* to be a great game. I think it could...if handled right. But I do hope that CA won't become too engrossed in the whole "war everywhere" idea, and forget that battles and RPG features alone are not nearly enough to make a succesful TW title.

Everyone at war is too simplistic a definition of the Warhammer universe. There are factions that have a strong hatred for each other (cultural/species aversion) and for specific actions (betray the dwarves and get a major grudge penalty) but there are also long standing alliances as well as alliances of convenience that occur. I think each faction can certainly have their place in the diplomatic and political portions of the game.

[xjlxking]

That remains to be seen, and the license may have or may not have cost alot. GW could be doing a royalty deal instead of something upfront. Either way, IF CA/SEGA skimped on resources to shore up money for a WH TW license, then this will be a giant failure and another reason for me to always wait for 75% off. Rome 2 definitely taught me never to preorder.





Yeah, the youtube views indicate it may at least be double the sales of Rome 2, given the rate of views it is getting.

That all depends on how they allocate their budget. I'd imagine less marketing and they don't have to tune the engine as much as Rome 2 was

[DavidtheDuke]

That all depends on how they allocate their budget. I'd imagine less marketing and they don't have to tune the engine as much as Rome 2 was

Flying creatures, huge monsters, and magic all basically require a lot of tuning. Anything else is disaster. We simply don't know the budget to make a judgement really, nor do we have even polished screenshots of gameplay.

[Dynamo11]

I'm expecting nothing but dumbed down streamlining, a large marketing budget, DLC out the arse and CA completely ignoring the community after learning zero from the last 2 years.


On second thoughts though if we get a decent 30 Years War mod out of it (Empire is basically Pike and Shot) I might think about buying it

[craziii]

'TW games are too buggy and rushed!!!'

*CA announces Warhammer game*

'This game will lower the quality of TW games!!!'

This combined with those citing the TWC survey (and even somehow using the fact the minority don't like fantasy as supporting evidence) of a tiny percentage of TW players makes me think there's some very limber mental gymnastics going on.

There are so many actual valid concerns they could have why is it they choose the most vapid which inevitably boil down to 'I don't like fantasy and neither should you' and 'It won't work just because'.

I want to say something nasty to them but I would get hit by the mod hammer for sure.

[Aurelius Silvanus Tacitus]

At first I was extremly dissapointed because to be honest I would have loved to see Medieval III, TW: 30 Years, TW: Revolution (1780-1900) on the historical side or ASOIAF on the fantasy side (so I could own the lions, dragons and krakens with His Grace, King Stannis) but then I became a bit concerned.

Let's remember what happens when CA decides to be ambitious on Warscape and hype then next game: TW:Rome2. Also, if they screw this one up they are really screwed: the Warhammer fans will eat them alive and GW will be the cook.

Also, yes I know the Warhammer is complex but I expect it to dumbed down and streamlined in the game.

As for the "they are abbandoning history": I don't think SEGA and CA will do that, they might be arrogant but they are not stupid. They have no competition and absolute monopoly over the market. If they did that folks like Paradox might come in or chaps like old Darth might give it a try.

The only thing we should worry is that the TW series might become more and more arcadey, cut down to peices (DLC) and streamlined and I do believe this might come regardless of Warhammer's existence.

Still, I advise all of you NOT to preorder and wait for the first in-depth reviews before buying it.

[Huberto]

'TW games are too buggy and rushed!!!'

*CA announces Warhammer game*

'This game will lower the quality of TW games!!!'

This combined with those citing the TWC survey (and even somehow using the fact the minority don't like fantasy as supporting evidence) of a tiny percentage of TW players makes me think there's some very limber mental gymnastics going on.

There are so many actual valid concerns they could have why is it they choose the most vapid which inevitably boil down to 'I don't like fantasy and neither should you' and 'It won't work just because'.

Picture, if you will, a world in which buggy and rushed games become even more buggy and even more rushed. Also re-do your math on the survey.

You're welcome.

I want to say something nasty to them but I would get hit by the mod hammer for sure.

Pro tip: this post reads like you have nothing to say. Perhaps you might wish to rephrase it?