Warhammer: Magic & Creatures vs Total War Armies

[Toho]

So I think for this topic I just have to open a new thread to make sure we all stay on topic.
For those interested in purchasing Warhammer TW, please share what you think how the new fantasy settings should play on the new game.

I am saying this because we get incredibly annoyed when a tower is too fast and catapults too accurate or a combination of the two

However in this new game whats the point of having a dragon or a magician being nerfed and inaccurate like the regular cannons and other war machines that we are used to?
In the new Attila game the Sassanids have grenadiers and yet for the life of me I cant figure out how to use them properly. I think what would make a fantasy game fun is this element of ridiculously overpowered units just wasting entire units hence you need your own units to deal with them.

So how do you guys think we could balance this?

[zsajak]

Isn't that the Atilla forum? Why post Warhammer stuff here and not in der general section?

[Emperor of The Great Unknown]

Isn't that the Atilla forum? Why post Warhammer stuff here and not in der general section?

The Warhammer stuff doesn't really have a home right now, I am sure once the hosted sub forum is created all the threads will be moved.

[Karnil Vark Khaitan]

A important thing about warhammer!

A Wizard is always gambling with he/she's soul, then casting magic, they can make a miscast which can be the end of the wizard or uncontrollable energy.

Monsters comes in few numbers, as trolls, you won't see a huge unit of those, at most 20 in a unit.
Dragons, griffons and so on, a very rare and will at most only be a mount for a strong leader.

[Toho]

So basically you could have a wizard raining fire on your enemies but each time he casts a spell there is a chance that he would instantly combust and hurt all the units around him? Sounds cool, and if he has a limited range like bow weapons then that would force the player to either completely leave the wizard exposed or have him around.

Btw will the wizard die if he goes out of control or will he be like the elephants and "calm down" in time?

[Karnil Vark Khaitan]

So basically you could have a wizard raining fire on your enemies but each time he casts a spell there is a chance that he would instantly combust and hurt all the units around him? Sounds cool, and if he has a limited range like bow weapons then that would force the player to either completely leave the wizard exposed or have him around.

Btw will the wizard die if he goes out of control or will he be like the elephants and "calm down" in time?

First of I don't know how CA. will do it, I just play the board game ^^

Yes having magic running though your body is hard to control, and yeah Wizards is rarely in fantasy made into groups, and that still makes it a dangerous thing to play with.

Then the wizard loses control, a random thing will happen, if he is lucky he will just lose some his magic levels, or he is pulled into the chaos realm to be consumed ^^
Or blow up people nearby him.

[xjlxking]

Please do not expect random event in battles, it's very unpopular. It definitely won't be implemented in games

[HigoChumbo]

Please do not expect random event in battles, it's very unpopular. It definitely won't be implemented in games

Many people don't like change, that does not mean it's a bad idea. I think it's cool to have the ability to gamble. I would not make it something to spam with random effects, but a risk you have the option to take as a last resource. The more powerful the effect, the more unpredictable the consequences. The "red button".

As for conservative people, I for once don't really hold them in high regard, so I wouldn't want the game to be designed after their whims After all... isn't Fantasy the antithesis of conservadurism?

"Rules are there to be kept for a reason" "Yes... but what if...?"

[xjlxking]

Many people don't like change, that does not mean it's a bad idea. I think it's cool to have the ability to gamble. I would not make it something to spam with random effects, but a risk you have the option to take as a last resource. The more powerful the effect, the more unpredictable the consequences. The "red button".

As for conservative people, I for once don't really hold them in high regard, so I wouldn't want the game to be designed after their whims After all... isn't Fantasy the antithesis of conservadurism?

"Rules are there to be kept for a reason" "Yes... but what if...?"

Im not talking about change

im talking about random events or chance. Random or chance isnt popular, it doesn't work, you can't count on it, hence players hate it. This is why most modern games don't use % chance to evade/dodge attack, rather devs are doing it as next attack will be dodged

[HigoChumbo]

Im not talking about change

im talking about random events or chance. Random or chance isnt popular, it doesn't work, you can't count on it, hence players hate it. This is why most modern games don't use % chance to evade/dodge attack, rather devs are doing it as next attack will be dodged

I'm a player and I dig it. Maybe you should say, "some players". Most players like simplistic games, quick matches, quick high reward with low effort and time spent, etc. Do you want TW made for Call of Duty fans? I can tell you one thing. It will be profitable as hell. But that's about it.

(Most) players don't like consequences. That's why most players play Call of Duty and not... say Europa Universalis 4. That does not mean all games have to be like CoD. I think it's a good incentive to give the player the ability to think, to judge, to choose by himself, to figure out if the risk is worth taking. I always have Quake 3 for when I want my mindless, quick run & gun fast fun, but I want to sit, relax, think and enjoy my strategy games every now and then as well.

(Most) TV audiences seem to hate nature or history documentaries. That does not mean they have to turn all programs into Jersey Shores because they are way more popular.


And I do think it's about change. Many players would have to change their mindset, but they would eventually get used to it. When I first started playing Europa Universalis after coming from Total War, I would just invade everything I could and quickly conquering everything around me. When I started having constant nationalist and religious rebellions and tons of countries joining into coallitions against my aggresive expansionism, I started to reap the consequences. At first I did not enjoy it, those rebels and coalitions were buzz killers, but now it's grown on me and I actually like that kind of campaign miles better than TW's.

I prefer having to plan in advance every step, to judge the benefits and consequences, to survive... rather than just painting the whole map red one siege at a time.



I don't know about you but I don't want TW to be turned further into a casual franchise. I like casual games, but we have tons of those, and I'd rather have the few kind of "niche" franchises we still have to stay niche. It's fun to use one's head every now and then. And there IS randomness already in Total War. For instance, agent percentage rates, and I imagine combat is done with some kind of dice rolls (I'm just guessing here though). That does not mean they have to make the entire game random, but a few random bits could be a nice touch.



* And I would argue that players don't like randomness when one of the most popular games right now is a game of chance such as the card based Hearthstone. And let's not even mention Poker or the very reason why Las Vegas even exists.

CHANGE DAMN IT! THE LORD OF CHANGE DEMANDS IT!!!!!

(someone had to be that guy, that's what I'm here for; to be that guy)

Hah, and yeah, given that the main dish of Warhammer's trailer is a Chaos Lord of Change, and that the words "our rules have changed" were mentioned, one could argue that change randomness have a quite big chance to be in this time ^^

[xjlxking]

I'm a player and I dig it. Maybe you should say, "some players". Most players like simplistic games, quick matches, quick high reward with low effort and time spent, etc. Do you want TW made for Call of Duty fans? I can tell you one thing. It will be profitable as hell. But that's about it.

(Most) players don't like consequences. That's why most players play Call of Duty and not... say Europa Universalis 4. That does not mean all games have to be like CoD. I think it's a good incentive to give the player the ability to think, to judge, to choose by himself, to figure out if the risk is worth taking. I always have Quake 3 for when I want my mindless, quick run & gun fast fun, but I want to sit, relax, think and enjoy my strategy games every now and then as well.

(Most) TV audiences seem to hate nature or history documentaries. That does not mean they have to turn all programs into Jersey Shores because they are way more popular.


And I do think it's about change. Many players would have to change their mindset, but they would eventually get used to it. When I first started playing Europa Universalis after coming from Total War, I would just invade everything I could and quickly conquering everything around me. When I started having constant nationalist and religious rebellions and tons of countries joining into coallitions against my aggresive expansionism, I started to reap the consequences. At first I did not enjoy it, those rebels and coalitions were buzz killers, but now it's grown on me and I actually like that kind of campaign miles better than TW's.

I prefer having to plan in advance every step, to judge the benefits and consequences, to survive... rather than just painting the whole map red one siege at a time.



I don't know about you but I don't want TW to be turned further into a casual franchise. I like casual games, but we have tons of those, and I'd rather have the few kind of "niche" franchises we still have to stay niche. It's fun to use one's head every now and then. And there IS randomness already in Total War. For instance, agent percentage rates, and I imagine combat is done with some kind of dice rolls (I'm just guessing here though). That does not mean they have to make the entire game random, but a few random bits could be a nice touch.



* And I would argue that players don't like randomness when one of the most popular games right now is a game of chance such as the card based Hearthstone. And let's not even mention Poker or the very reason why Las Vegas even exists.





Hah, and yeah, given that the main dish of Warhammer's trailer is a Chaos Lord of Change, and that the words "our rules have changed" were mentioned, one could argue that change randomness have a quite big chance to be in this time ^^

I think you are confusing drawback with chance

[Theo]

Many people don't like change, that does not mean it's a bad idea.

CHANGE DAMN IT! THE LORD OF CHANGE DEMANDS IT!!!!!

(someone had to be that guy, that's what I'm here for; to be that guy)

[♘Top Hat Zebra]

Chance is already a pretty big factor in agent interactions, and the campaign map in general.

And the battle calculations, for that matter.

[jtfjtfjtf]

I wouldn't be surprised if there were unit limits and multiple turn recruitment for WH. There are max unit limits for the tabletop game.

[♘Top Hat Zebra]

How is that unbalanced or random?

Your wizard has a very powerful ability he can use in dire circumstances. If you use it, there is a chance of a random effect, whether it be destroying him and a radios around him, corrupting him, or otherwise something negative.

Don't use the ability if you don't find the chance worth it.

[xjlxking]

At this point, we are just using our ego to argue. I've said my opinion. I don't think SEGA/CA will put such random events. Yes, there are random events, but I don't think they will go to the extreme that you think they will. I understand what you are saying and your stance on it, but I don't agree.

[HigoChumbo]

At this point, we are just using our ego to argue. I've said my opinion. I don't think SEGA/CA will put such random events. Yes, there are random events, but I don't think they will go to the extreme that you think they will. I understand what you are saying and your stance on it, but I don't agree.

I don't know why ego has anything to do with my comments here. I'm just giving arguments to discuss over something I don't agree with. In any case I respect any opinion presented in a mature way, so there.

I don't think they'll take the risk either, I'm just saying I think it would be not only cool, but actually add to the strategy. In any case I don't want to make any longer the list of "features that won't be there and whose absence will disappoint me the very day they show gameplay".

I go away for the weekend and come back to see that there are 3-4 Warhammer threads going on in the Attila threads.

You're telling me that Warhammer fans don't have their own forums somewhere out there in the world wide web?

I've already said somewhere that we should stick, to the General TW Discussion while we get a dedicated subforum, if only out of convenience (I have to visit 3 different subforums everytime I check for Warhammer news). That said, I don't see why would we discuss a Total War in a place other than the best Total War forum there is.

For what mods have said, it seems the making of the new forum is inminent, so don't worry.


(And well, after all everything seems to point out that Warhammer will end up being an Attila mod with greenskins )

But perhaps what I'm more interested in is if there'll be any room for counter-magic gameplay in Warhammer. It's cool to blast armies, but sometimes I think it'd been advantageous to use the power of your magi to screen your advancing infantry from enemy magical spells instead in the case of a siege for instance.

spells combined with counter spells is something I feel could make a much more deeper and complex magical system.

I can also think of perhaps a category of tactical but non-harmful spells, like creating magical fog to hide your unit movement, which I feel could be cool and add yet a third dimension to any magical system.

That would be really interesting (I actually suggested something similar when I said they could take Sacrifice's spells as inspiration):

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

• Notice how this one even interacts with moving flying units (in the end). Yes, this is a freaking 15 year old game, just in case you bring up the "that's very hard to code" argument again:

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

The problem here is that I doubt that an AI uncapable of even using torches properly (torches being the workaround for other stuff it can't use properly) could handle the tactical complexities of such stuff.

[Darios]

I go away for the weekend and come back to see that there are 3-4 Warhammer threads going on in the Attila threads.

You're telling me that Warhammer fans don't have their own forums somewhere out there in the world wide web?

[Markas]

You're telling me that Warhammer fans don't have their own forums somewhere out there in the world wide web?

Not on TWC as of yet as GED was away when the announcement was made. Not sure why you would think we'd have to leave Total War Centre to discuss a Total War game.

[Darios]

As it stands, 3 out of the 5 threads on the Attila main discussion is about Warhammer.

April was a very depressing month for ATW fans. The only information we got out of CA was about Arena, Kingdoms, Warhammer, a blood hotfix, and the Steam Workshop. No news about improvements, patches, DLC, or even a Rally Point episode. I hope that morale concerning ATW is not so low that people would rather talk about a game that they currently know nothing about rather than trying to fix/improve a game that has the potential of becoming great. Hopefully CA will give us some real news concerning Attila this week. If they do not do anything by the end of May then I guess it would be safe to assume that it's all over for Attila and that it'd be a bigger disaster than Rome 2.