Limitless editing tools, map et cetera

[HigoChumbo]

In all honesty, I think it's just because they can't get money from dlcs and other content if modders to that same work for free... and better.

Yes modding probably takes a lot more work nowdays than 10 years ago, but the fact that we are seeing close to no serious modding makes me think that they are indeed intentionally limiting it. I just don't believe that modding is so hard that two years after the release of Rome 2 I am yet to see a mod that adds new 3d models. I doubt the guys at CA take more than a day to fully develop and implement a unit in the game.

CA basically weighed the potential added value modding tools would give to their games versus the additional development costs, and the latter were too high for a studio like CA.

CA weighted the potential loss of income due to fans creating their own extra content for free.

[Ulfgard the Unmaker]

Yes, as I said GW has nothing to do with previous titles, so the question must go deeper than "no tools is GW's fault" cause that could also not be the case for like Attila or Rome 2.

Your questionmarks do mean what question exactly?

Sander, nobody is arguing with you. Nobody here is suggesting that GW has anything to do with the reason that modding is so difficult and that there are no modding tools in the games that came before Total War Warhammer.

Again, the games since Empire have been very difficult to mod. This is something that will also be true of the upcoming Warhammer title. The difference is that Warhammer will be even more difficult to mod, because it will not be officially supported in ANY way, which most folks agree can be traced to GW. It is this specific difference that is being referred to.

Does that make more sense?

[frenchyvinnie]

CA weighted the potential loss of income due to fans creating their own extra content for free.

Possibly.
After all, ever since the discontinuation of full modding tools, we've seen CA's approach to DLCs become a lot more... aggressive. And that's putting it mildly.

For instance, I have no doubt that with access to full modding tools and the ability to alter the campaign map, the community would have released mods for Caesar in Gaul, the Roman Civil War and Hannibal's campaigns in less than a year. Hell, we might have even seen a full mod conversion for the barbarian invasions before Hannibal was ever released.

But I still choose to believe that CA isn't doing this on purpose. And I must emphasize that I choose to believe it, because CA's treatment of its community and fans hasn't always been great (and that's another big understatement...). I choose to believe that CA is full of passionate people that love their games and truly value the content created by modders. I hope that Rome 2's buggy and broken release and the discontinuation of full modding tools were made because of economic constraints, and not because of money-grabbing schemes.

Hope is independent of the apparatus of logic - Norman Cousins.

[HigoChumbo]

But I still choose to believe that CA isn't doing this on purpose.

I honestly think it's as intentional as intentional gets. And it's a show of greedy laziness, because If I was in charge of one of the top game developers worldwide, I would just not worry about giving the fans the same tools I use because there is just no way that a handful of amateurs can achieve working in their free time the same amount content as a full team of trained professionals working full time, not to mention of the same quality.

Imagine if Jimi Hendrix was afraid of lending his guitar to a member of the public because "maybe" he would play better than him and steal the act.

Point being that if they do that it's because they want to maximize income with the minimal effort, and amateurs are actual competence if it's just to the results of their minimal efforts, so better take them out. I guess they also don't want other developers to reverse engineer their code because right now one of the main reasons for the success of The Creative Assembly is that they have just no compentence for the type of game they make, and they want to keep it that way.

I choose to believe that CA is full of passionate people that love their games and truly value the content created by modders.

Wonder how many of those guys are in charge and have the final say.

the discontinuation of full modding tools were made because of economic constraints, and not because of money-grabbing schemes.

If they were the altruistic, fan-loving company you choose to believe they are, they would just share the same tools they use to develop the game, they have no need to create new software. But they are not, they are a business (nothing wrong with that, though)

[DavidtheDuke]

If they were the altruistic, fan-loving company you choose to believe they are, they would just share the same tools they use to develop the game, they have no need to create new software. But they are not, they are a business (nothing wrong with that, though)

They use professional software for much of the development. It's not like they can pay for a license for each and every modder, not even counting the logistics of doing something like that. They managed to get audio to be moddable in Rome 2, but only just. Whatever their intentions, it doesn't matter, it greatly lowers the value of TW games for me. MTW2 was the only other TW I paid $60 for and now would've paid $120 for what I got out of it, and unfortunately also Rome 2.

But yeah, if my scenario is right (I think it is to a large extent), it really don't help convince guys like Tim Heaton which are just ends-justify-the-profits guys. Not to mention TW3 is just so much more complicated and they just plucked the best TW3 modder out of the scene (Mitch). It's not really looking good on the TW3 modding front IMO. MTW2 was the golden era, and still is, really. Besides, even the MTW2/RTW campaign map editors were via fan, not some tool CA provided. They did provide a few, but never a campaign map too AFAIK.

My best hope for Warhammer is at least some of the new blood hasn't had their soul sucked out of them via long-hours and drudge work and that they are actual Warhammer people not just college after-graduates who happened to be qualified for a CA job listing.

[Jack Lusted]

Well there are certainly a lot of claims being made in this thread about why we do things. To start off just reiterating what we've said about modding in Warhammer:

As this isn’t just a CA game, regretfully there are no plans to support modding for Total War: Warhammer. An Assembly Kit is will be available very shortly for Total War: ATTILA however, and we will continue to support modding for that title and plan to for future historical Total Wars.

Let's move on to some of the claims made, and in particular the idea that we've deliberately made games on the TW3 engine for difficult to mod and we're holding back all our tools for no reason. It shouldn't need to be said but this isn't true in the slightest.

Modding has become more complicated on TW3, but then making the games has too as our engine has evolved and technology improved. In Rome and Medieval II you could make campaign maps from some .tga and text files. In Shogun 2, for which we released campaign editing tools, it was created via a complicated 3d model that provided multiple layers of information which was then processed through the game and combined with information from the games database to produce the final campaign.

Before the Shogun 2 Assembly Kit the only mod tool we'd ever released for our games was the unpacker for Medieval II, and that just gave access to the files shipped with the game, it didn't allow any editing of them by itself. That fell to community tools and programs like notepad, photoshop, 3dsmax etc.

Another point to be made is that no we can't just release the tools we have. Some rely on 3rd party programs, and the ones that don't aren't designed to work with the released game, because that's not the data we work with when we're making it.

We work with what we call raw data, the basic max or photoshop files for models and textures, or the raw xml tables for the database. We then modify them via tools, both internal and 3rd party, and then convert them into the format the game uses when it runs. We do this because it allows for us to work in the most flexible way, and makes sure the data we include for the final is only what's needed. The raw data for animations runs into the hundreds of GBs, in the final game the animations pack for Attila is under 200 MB.

Back in the Rome I and Medieval II days, the conversion between raw and working data was often done when the game was run. It was possible because of the smaller number of files that needed to be converted. Nowadays if we did that the game would take a few days to load up. It's not feasible any more.

Every tool we've released to the community we've had to modify extensively to work with the released version of the game. That's always going to be true with how we work.

We want to support modders, its why we release mod tools and have Steam Workshop support in our most recent games. As the quote above explains we can't do that for Warhammer, but for future historical titles we plan to continue supporting modding.

There is no evil conspiracy to block modding to try and sell more DLCs or for any other reason. I can tell you that one of the most common mods for Empire were unit packs, and the unit packs we made sold just fine. Our games have got more complex, and how we and our tools work have changed in the almost decade since Medieval II was released. That's all.

Hope that clears up a few things

[HigoChumbo]

They use professional software for much of the development. It's not like they can pay for a license for each and every modder, not even counting the logistics of doing something like that.

Exactly, but my point is that there are many people who already has access to those same tools. Stuff like 3dmax and the like is quite widespread. Then there is how to integrate the work done into the game, and I imagine they use tools created by themselves for that. That's why I say that I don't buy the "it would be counter-productive for them to create modding tools because it would take them a lot of work" argument. "Official modding tools" are to the fanbase the same as a father's "you can drive my lexus but just inside the garage" to his teenager son. There is no way he is going to let him take the Lexus out, same as there is no way CA shares all their development secrets to the public.

it greatly lowers the value of TW games for me

Well, definately not for them.

In any case, as I have said several times for Shogun 2, if the game is actually spot on, I just don't feel the need for mods. If a professional team is doing their best, there is just no way that a bunch of amateurs are going to outdo them. Still, flavour options should be let open (like the option to give units realistic textures, although in my humble opinion that's something they could do faster and better than modders and should probably be just an in-game option you can turn on and off, or hell, even a dlc).

TW3 is just so much more complicated and they just plucked the best TW3 modder out of the scene (Mitch).

Same as above, to me mods are not about making full conversions, I honestly don't care about a mod making Rome into the Middle Earth since most likely the final result is going to be lackluster as hell, I'd rather wait for a professional developer to do that. To me mods are about flavour touches, and most flavour touches are not really that complicated. Create a model and texture it and add it to the game, change a few modifiers to... I don't know, make units run slower or whatever, tweak the starting position of a faction and stuff like that. How hard can it be to implement a new 3d model into the game?

They did provide a few, but never a campaign map too AFAIK.

That could have affected the sales. How many people would have rather paid for Kingdoms or Alexander if they were much happier with Europa Barbarorum, Roma Surrectum II or even Third Age?




edit:

I can tell you that one of the most common mods for Empire were unit packs, and the unit packs we made sold just fine.

Is "just fine" what the people in charge at aiming for? To me that sounds as if someone told me that the movie and music industries have no problems whatsoever with piracy because people still go to the cinema and cds sell just fine.

I repeat the same I've already said several times. Forget the campaign and the animations. How hard can it be to add a new 3d model to the game?

[Jack Lusted]

Is "just fine" what the people in charge at aiming for? To me that sounds as if someone told me that the movie and music industries have no problems whatsoever with piracy because people still go to the cinema and buy cds just fine, and in my experience that's not the reality.

Well we've made unit packs for Napoleon and Shogun 2 and Rome II, so what do you think?

[DavidtheDuke]

Exactly, but my point is that there are many people who already has access to those same tools. Stuff like 3dmax and the like is quite widespread. Then there is how to integrate the work done into the game, and I imagine they use tools created by themselves for that. That's why I say that I don't buy the "it would be counter-productive for them to create modding tools because it would take them a lot of work" argument. "Official modding tools" are to the fanbase the same as a father's "you can drive my lexus but just inside the garage" to his teenager son. There is no way he is going to let him take the Lexus out, same as there is no way CA shares all their development secrets to the public.



Well, definately not for them.

In any case, as I have said several times for Shogun 2, if the game is actually spot on, I just don't feel the need for mods. If a professional team is doing their best, there is just no way that a bunch of amateurs are going to outdo them. Still, flavour options should be let open (like the option to give units realistic textures, although in my humble opinion that's something they could do faster and better than modders and should probably be just an in-game option you can turn on and off, or hell, even a dlc).



Same as above, to me mods are not about making full conversions, I honestly don't care about a mod making Rome into the Middle Earth since most likely the final result is going to be lackluster as hell, I'd rather wait for a professional developer to do that. To me mods are about flavour touches, and most flavour touches are not really that complicated. Create a model and texture it and add it to the game, change a few modifiers to... I don't know, make units run slower or whatever, tweak the starting position of a faction and stuff like that. How hard can it be to implement a new 3d model into the game?



That could have affected the sales. How many people would have rather paid for Kingdoms or Alexander if they were much happier with Europa Barbarorum, Roma Surrectum II or even Third Age?

CA doesn't have to pay a huge amount of money to some professional 3d program software company so modders can mod. It might literallty cost tens of millions of dollars for them to allow that, if not more (I'm not sure how much they'd want, if they'd even allow a blanket publication like that).

I would've paid more if they actually put real mechanics into the game, and people are paying for Viking Conquest although there are many better mods. It's weird but many do, and I would too, but Taleworlds is a bit of a altruistic company and nothing like Tim Heaton, however.

And I would love an engine which supported total conversions because I think modders simply are better at balancing etc, CA is mostly good for the skeleton and basic assets. Mods just aren't a big enough part of the actual playerbase for CA to negotiate with all their dev teams and software licenses. I'm surprised they've done as much as they have with Rome 2 and Atilla really.

I didn't really like Shogun 2 that much, even if it worked well. It kind of got old quickly (though FotS was a good distraction for a short time), and so did MTW2 vanilla, the total conversions, which there are several really good ones, have made it worth it. I'm simply not going to want to pay as much for something that effectively (intentionally or not) more limited. Warhammer is an exception here, since the CoW convinced me it's the best setting for TW in any conceivable universe, ever IMO. But being so unmoddable means if Warhammer had been released instead of MTW2 9 years ago we'd see Rennaisance mods for it, but now that won't be possible because even the campaign map isn't moddable (at least easily). And given we're getting what we get especially with this TW, that's going to be that either way. The TW3 engine is definitely suited more for specific work and light mods (what you like). So you're getting your way via market forces and general game structure/engine design.

I'm guessing CA is going to allow at least rebalancing mods etc and maybe we'll see the level of modding there was for Rome 2 before the workshop, at least. That did include unit mods even, didn't it? I think so, but I'm not totally sure yet.

Edit: I'd also like to clarify I think many people like vanilla TW over mods, it's just my preference.

[HigoChumbo]

CA doesn't have to pay a huge amount of money to some professional 3d program software company so modders can mod. It might literallty cost tens of millions of dollars for them to allow that, if not more (I'm not sure how much they'd want, if they'd even allow a blanket publication like that).

I think we are not on the same page here. Why would they have to pay for whatever software modders use? What I'm saying is that a modder might already have that software.

(In any case, note that I'm not at all saying that they should just release everything they have, I'm merely using that as an argument against the "CA really would love to allow the fans to mod as much as they want but they just can't because it's hard" thing). I think that if they really wanted to, they could do it, but that does not mean that I'm critizising them for not doing it, business is business, I imagine they have their own reasons.

I'm simply not going to want to pay as much for something that effectively (intentionally or not) more limited.

So you yourself are saying it. Mods can actually have a negative impact on sales. (although they can also have a positive impact, if not look at what DayZ did to Arma 2).

Warhammer is an exception here

Same as with Shogun, I would not care in the slightest if Warhammer was not moddable as far as they pulled it off. I would have no need for an amateur modder to add a new faction if I knew the professionals at CA can do it miles better. The problem comes when they just don't.

The TW3 engine is definitely suited more for specific work and light mods (what you like). So you're getting your way via market forces and general game structure/engine design.

I don't know, I am yet to see a Rome 2 mod that adds stuff as basic as new models for helmets or shields.

Well we've made unit packs for Napoleon and Shogun 2 and Rome II, so what do you think?

I really don't want to sound harsh Jack, but either I'm missing some piece of information or I fail to see how that relates to my question.

Now answering yours, what I think is that you guys know that modding can affect sales (and you have the opinion of a different user saying just that right above), so I imagine the company had to take some measures (whatever they are) to soften the impact in case it is negative. And again, I'm not at all saying that you guys are the devil for doing that (whatever it is, if you have done something) it does not need to be an "evil conspiracy", it's just that the whole "our sacred and wise corporate leaders only care and live for the good of the common people" narrative does not agree with me.

[Admiral Piett]

Well there are certainly a lot of claims being made in this thread about why we do things. To start off just reiterating what we've said about modding in Warhammer:



Let's move on to some of the claims made, and in particular the idea that we've deliberately made games on the TW3 engine for difficult to mod and we're holding back all our tools for no reason. It shouldn't need to be said but this isn't true in the slightest.

Modding has become more complicated on TW3, but then making the games has too as our engine has evolved and technology improved. In Rome and Medieval II you could make campaign maps from some .tga and text files. In Shogun 2, for which we released campaign editing tools, it was created via a complicated 3d model that provided multiple layers of information which was then processed through the game and combined with information from the games database to produce the final campaign.

Before the Shogun 2 Assembly Kit the only mod tool we'd ever released for our games was the unpacker for Medieval II, and that just gave access to the files shipped with the game, it didn't allow any editing of them by itself. That fell to community tools and programs like notepad, photoshop, 3dsmax etc.

Another point to be made is that no we can't just release the tools we have. Some rely on 3rd party programs, and the ones that don't aren't designed to work with the released game, because that's not the data we work with when we're making it.

We work with what we call raw data, the basic max or photoshop files for models and textures, or the raw xml tables for the database. We then modify them via tools, both internal and 3rd party, and then convert them into the format the game uses when it runs. We do this because it allows for us to work in the most flexible way, and makes sure the data we include for the final is only what's needed. The raw data for animations runs into the hundreds of GBs, in the final game the animations pack for Attila is under 200 MB.

Back in the Rome I and Medieval II days, the conversion between raw and working data was often done when the game was run. It was possible because of the smaller number of files that needed to be converted. Nowadays if we did that the game would take a few days to load up. It's not feasible any more.

Every tool we've released to the community we've had to modify extensively to work with the released version of the game. That's always going to be true with how we work.

We want to support modders, its why we release mod tools and have Steam Workshop support in our most recent games. As the quote above explains we can't do that for Warhammer, but for future historical titles we plan to continue supporting modding.

There is no evil conspiracy to block modding to try and sell more DLCs or for any other reason. I can tell you that one of the most common mods for Empire were unit packs, and the unit packs we made sold just fine. Our games have got more complex, and how we and our tools work have changed in the almost decade since Medieval II was released. That's all.

Hope that clears up a few things

Perhaps it wouldn't be impractical to look at developing a more simplified map in future titles and moving forward in that direction; or at the very least one that does not require complicated methods and third party tools to develop? A very large portion of CA's customers prefer an emphasis on gameplay longevity over graphical enhancements. The several years worth of replayability is what really what gave the Total War series its cult-like popularity back in the day and now it's more or less become routine rehashes of earlier titles all on the same or similar engines the way that other popular franchises have become. Medieval and Rome didn't have nor attempted to have the best graphics of the day and no one really minded that. Some youtube channels are still doing Medieval 1 campaigns and many are still doing Rome campaigns and multiplayers.

[DavidtheDuke]

I think we are not on the same page here. Why would they have to pay for whatever software modders use? What I'm saying is that a modder might already have that software.

(In any case, note that I'm not at all saying that they should just release everything they have, I'm merely using that as an argument against the "CA really would love to allow the fans to mod as much as they want but they just can't because it's hard" thing). I think that if they really wanted to, they could do it, but that does not mean that I'm critizising them for not doing it, business is business, I imagine they have their own reasons.

Because you can't just use any software, it's probably very specific and customized for the engine. Keep in mind Total War uses a different paradigm for rendering soldiers on the battlefield, even, than say Unity. Jack just said it himself, TW3 is very complex and requires programs that cost lots of money. Then they customize it for their game. I don't know how difficult it would be to make it more workable with common programs. It's hard for us to say really. And it doesn't really matter, really. It's kind of like people worrying about whether or not CA is doing things because of Sega or because of CA, when it doesn't really matter but what the result is and what consumers can do to change that. Which isn't much in this case because modders are mostly a vocal minority, even including the modded playerbase.

So you yourself are saying it. Mods can actually have a negative impact on sales. (although they can also have a positive impact, if not look at what DayZ did to Arma 2).

No, I'm saying I won't pay for a game with a more limited modding scope. The opposite, in a way.

Same as with Shogun, I would not care in the slightest if Warhammer was not moddable as far as they pulled it off. I would have no need for an amateur modder to add a new faction if I knew the professionals at CA can do it miles better. The problem comes when they just don't.

Sure, but it's not a problem for them as you've said yourself. So here we are, practicalities and market forces is where we are with this.

I don't know, I am yet to see a Rome 2 mod that adds stuff as basic as new models for helmets or shields.

I meant rebalancing and mechanics tweaking. I'm not sure whether or not actual meshes/shaders/skeletons are moddable or not myself.

I'm surprised it's this easy to edit units in Rome 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TA0SPmt-dO4

Perhaps it wouldn't be impractical to look at developing a more simplified map in future titles and moving forward in that direction; or at the very least one that does not require complicated methods and third party tools to develop? A very large portion of CA's customers prefer an emphasis on gameplay longevity over graphical enhancements. The several years worth of replayability is what really what gave the Total War series its cult-like popularity back in the day and now it's more or less become routine rehashes of earlier titles all on the same or similar engines the way that other popular franchises have become. Medieval and Rome didn't have nor attempted to have the best graphics of the day and no one really minded that. Some youtube channels are still doing Medieval 1 campaigns and many are still doing Rome campaigns and multiplayers.

While I would've liked for CA to just keep upgrading MTW2 to add for many stacks and even more customizable BAI, CA wanted to get bigger and not go the way of Warband like Taleworlds did, it wasn't the way CA wanted to go. And ironically they may never have gotten big enough enough to make the Warhammer game they're making now. I sure hope they get this one right (or at least close enough to where rebalancing and bug fixing mods super-polish it )

[The Wandering Storyteller]

Well there are certainly a lot of claims being made in this thread about why we do things. To start off just reiterating what we've said about modding in Warhammer:



Let's move on to some of the claims made, and in particular the idea that we've deliberately made games on the TW3 engine for difficult to mod and we're holding back all our tools for no reason. It shouldn't need to be said but this isn't true in the slightest.

Modding has become more complicated on TW3, but then making the games has too as our engine has evolved and technology improved. In Rome and Medieval II you could make campaign maps from some .tga and text files. In Shogun 2, for which we released campaign editing tools, it was created via a complicated 3d model that provided multiple layers of information which was then processed through the game and combined with information from the games database to produce the final campaign.

Before the Shogun 2 Assembly Kit the only mod tool we'd ever released for our games was the unpacker for Medieval II, and that just gave access to the files shipped with the game, it didn't allow any editing of them by itself. That fell to community tools and programs like notepad, photoshop, 3dsmax etc.

Another point to be made is that no we can't just release the tools we have. Some rely on 3rd party programs, and the ones that don't aren't designed to work with the released game, because that's not the data we work with when we're making it.

We work with what we call raw data, the basic max or photoshop files for models and textures, or the raw xml tables for the database. We then modify them via tools, both internal and 3rd party, and then convert them into the format the game uses when it runs. We do this because it allows for us to work in the most flexible way, and makes sure the data we include for the final is only what's needed. The raw data for animations runs into the hundreds of GBs, in the final game the animations pack for Attila is under 200 MB.

Back in the Rome I and Medieval II days, the conversion between raw and working data was often done when the game was run. It was possible because of the smaller number of files that needed to be converted. Nowadays if we did that the game would take a few days to load up. It's not feasible any more.

Every tool we've released to the community we've had to modify extensively to work with the released version of the game. That's always going to be true with how we work.

We want to support modders, its why we release mod tools and have Steam Workshop support in our most recent games. As the quote above explains we can't do that for Warhammer, but for future historical titles we plan to continue supporting modding.

There is no evil conspiracy to block modding to try and sell more DLCs or for any other reason. I can tell you that one of the most common mods for Empire were unit packs, and the unit packs we made sold just fine. Our games have got more complex, and how we and our tools work have changed in the almost decade since Medieval II was released. That's all.

Hope that clears up a few things

Unit packs?

They could be better released - with more than 15-20 units in a pack added with special traits. Not seven or 8 which don't affect anything in the game - modders have done a better job than that.

Don't forget that other great overhaul mods were released - don't single out the TW community after ETW being based on single unit packs. That is not what total war modding community was built on.

The TW modding's community has done that for a while because of their limited abilities to mod the later TW3 games - campaign mods have been really less. And that sucks.

I hope you are not excluding the modders that made it possible for a ROTK mod that has come out.

Will there be support for Rome 2 to give out the full assembly kit? Or do you have no plans to support this?


Graphcial mods/unit packs are one thing - but a campaign mod adds way more longevity to your games. Third age?

[SanderP]

Well there are certainly a lot of claims being made in this thread about why we do things. To start off just reiterating what we've said about modding in Warhammer:



Let's move on to some of the claims made, and in particular the idea that we've deliberately made games on the TW3 engine for difficult to mod and we're holding back all our tools for no reason. It shouldn't need to be said but this isn't true in the slightest.

Modding has become more complicated on TW3, but then making the games has too as our engine has evolved and technology improved. In Rome and Medieval II you could make campaign maps from some .tga and text files. In Shogun 2, for which we released campaign editing tools, it was created via a complicated 3d model that provided multiple layers of information which was then processed through the game and combined with information from the games database to produce the final campaign.

Before the Shogun 2 Assembly Kit the only mod tool we'd ever released for our games was the unpacker for Medieval II, and that just gave access to the files shipped with the game, it didn't allow any editing of them by itself. That fell to community tools and programs like notepad, photoshop, 3dsmax etc.

Another point to be made is that no we can't just release the tools we have. Some rely on 3rd party programs, and the ones that don't aren't designed to work with the released game, because that's not the data we work with when we're making it.

We work with what we call raw data, the basic max or photoshop files for models and textures, or the raw xml tables for the database. We then modify them via tools, both internal and 3rd party, and then convert them into the format the game uses when it runs. We do this because it allows for us to work in the most flexible way, and makes sure the data we include for the final is only what's needed. The raw data for animations runs into the hundreds of GBs, in the final game the animations pack for Attila is under 200 MB.

Back in the Rome I and Medieval II days, the conversion between raw and working data was often done when the game was run. It was possible because of the smaller number of files that needed to be converted. Nowadays if we did that the game would take a few days to load up. It's not feasible any more.

Every tool we've released to the community we've had to modify extensively to work with the released version of the game. That's always going to be true with how we work.

We want to support modders, its why we release mod tools and have Steam Workshop support in our most recent games. As the quote above explains we can't do that for Warhammer, but for future historical titles we plan to continue supporting modding.

There is no evil conspiracy to block modding to try and sell more DLCs or for any other reason. I can tell you that one of the most common mods for Empire were unit packs, and the unit packs we made sold just fine. Our games have got more complex, and how we and our tools work have changed in the almost decade since Medieval II was released. That's all.

Hope that clears up a few things

First of all; very much thank you for that response!

The second thing still is, does that mean, for titles like Empire until Attila and also titles after Warhammer, there will be almost no chance to mod the campaign map?
That is what I am mostly interested in to know, or are you guys going to plan ahead improving this huge aspect of the modding scene so it once might be possible again?

[LordInvictus]

I don't know, I am yet to see a Rome 2 mod that adds stuff as basic as new models for helmets or shields.

DEI for Rome 2 uses many custom models, like sicas, turbans, maces, etc. The LOTR and Medieval conversion mods consisted almost entirely of imported models.

[craziii]

modding is kinda tricky with any gameworkshop ip. they actively shut down all big ones.

[frenchyvinnie]

Same as above, to me mods are not about making full conversions, I honestly don't care about a mod making Rome into the Middle Earth since most likely the final result is going to be lackluster as hell, I'd rather wait for a professional developer to do that. To me mods are about flavour touches, and most flavour touches are not really that complicated. Create a model and texture it and add it to the game, change a few modifiers to... I don't know, make units run slower or whatever, tweak the starting position of a faction and stuff like that. How hard can it be to implement a new 3d model into the game?

Be careful not to confuse your expectations with the demands of the majority of TW players, Higo.

To many players, simple flavor touches as you put it are obviously enough to make the game great. However, if we look at M2TW (the golden age of modding according to most people), the most popular mods were Third Age, followed by Stainless Steel and Broken Crescent. Both Third Age and Broken Crescent are full conversion mods with a new campaign map. Stainless Steel is a major overhaul with big changes to the campaign map.

Therefore, the most popular mods were the big conversion mods. I think that the reason for this is that they were often much more polished and in depth than the original game, with uncountable more features that we never saw in a TW game before or since. Having tried these three mods, I can affirm that they are anything but lackluster.

Therefore, the reason why many people were eagerly awaiting mod tools for Warhammer was because it could have been a huge opportunity for modders. This game will introduce far more new animation skeletons, textures and special effects than any previous game. It would have been much easier to model a Middle Earth troll from one of Warhammer's monsters than from a Med2TW infantry soldier for example.

[HigoChumbo]

Be careful not to confuse your expectations with the demands of the majority of TW players, Higo.

When did I do that?

Same as above, to me mods are not about making full conversions

In any case, I might have expressed myself wrong. It's not that I don't care about full conversions (I actually played and enjoyed Broken Crescent, although I wouldn't really call that a full conversion), it's just that, if a game is well done, mods are just not a priority for me. When I started getting into mods (rome 1/medieval 2) I wanted mods not because I was bored of vanilla, but because there were a lot of things in vanilla that I'd rather have changed (for instance, I prefered to have realistic looking textures instead of pink parthians, or an historically accurate iberian peninsula instead of making Navarra a part of Portugal and the Kingdom of Aragon a bunch of rebels).

The reason why I say that I don't care so much for full conversions is not that I would not enjoy a TW game set in Middle Earth (and trust me, I would), but just that, in my experience, amateur modders just don't have the expertise to pull that off and do it justice. It's easier to tweak an historical unit in an historical game than adding flying units, monsters and magic to an historical game, and the results are most likely going to be a lot better in the first case.

If I review the best mods I've ever seen in gaming (Blitzkrieg mod for CoH, Project Reality mod for BF2, etc.) or the most successful ones (Counter Strike, DotA, Black Mesa, Red Orchestra), they are not really full conversions but tweaks on the game fundamental basis, and although some other full conversion mods are as succesful (Call of Warhammer, Third Age), the final result is just not as flawless. Most people play those not so much because they make the game great, but because it allows them to play in a setting they enjoy. Those usually lack solid, developed mechanics and artistic design.

To me personally it get's to a point were the frustration created by mediocre quality overcomes the joy of playing in the new setting. For instance, as much as I like Warhammer or The Lord of the Rings, I just can't get myself to play CoW or TTA for more than 10 minutes.

This game will introduce far more new animation skeletons, textures and special effects than any previous game. It would have been much easier to model a Middle Earth troll from one of Warhammer's monsters than from a Med2TW infantry soldier for example.

I think that the problem with mods based on licensed material is that there is always going to be someone feeling that he is loosing money. And it does not always have to be the developer. Imagine CA tried to buy the rights for The Lord of the Rings and didn't reach an agreement with the owner, I could see him feeling cheated if someone made a LoTR mod anyways, and although it would initially be non-profit, it would definatelly make CA's original game more appealing to the public. CA would be getting profits from a license they did not buy. I seem to recall for instance that Warner shut down the development aof a completelly non-profit Lord of the Rings mod for Skyrim.

It would also be unfair to the developers who have actually spent a fortune on legally purchasing the rights.

With historical units there is no such problem. There are no licenses for historically accurate medieval knights.

[DavidtheDuke]

To me personally it get's to a point were the frustration created by mediocre quality overcomes the joy of playing in the new setting. For instance, as much as I like Warhammer or The Lord of the Rings, I just can't get myself to play CoW or TTA for more than 10 minutes.

You can't possibly be saying CoW has mediocre quality unit mods Same for Third Age really.. it's one of the most comprehensive mods ever produced by the most talented in the MTW2 modding scene. I'd even say most CoW models look better than the vanilla units, but that's just me. I myself played it awhile with all the factions for a bit around 2012-2013, there's alot of diversity and playing styles fighting off the chaos invasion with the different units. But yeah anything gets old eventually.

[Wulfburk]

Considering the two most succesful Total War mods are probably Third Age and Europa Barbarorum, both total conversions (a total conversion does not needs to have a new setting, EB did not keep 1 single model from vanilla, for example), i dont know where you are coming from. Basically what you are saying is that total conversions are inherently mediocre in quality, which is a grand generalization and just outright wrong. I could name various total conversions as such, Third Age, LORD OF THE RINGS - TOTAL WAR (much better than TATW imo), Forgotten Hope 2, various Mount & Blade Warband mods, and etc.

Some total conversions are mediocre yeah, well some not so much total conversions are just the same, so?


Basically, speak for yourself mate. And the main reason Total War has been taking quite a reputation hit with the pc community is the lack of total conversions ever since Empire.