CA wants to put 20 units only again, let the option "large army", let people make their own choices!

[Vardeus]

I support 20 unit per army.. Its good all round managable, but if you want bigger battles, I think what medieval 2 kingdoms Expansion done was great idea.. You still control 20 unit, but if you have generals near you in the campaign map, they join the battle too. You control their generals to what to do and that general controls what his unit should do.. That is a great way of commanding very huge armies without deadling with all the micro management.. CA would improve it and implement it ..

Yeah, that was such a great feature. It's the kind of feature CA has no excuse to keep out of their games. Now you just get your allies rushing to the enemy as soon as the timer starts ticking and you can't change it in any way. And it's specially outrageous when you are reinforcing, if you give a damn about their survival (for VERY mysterious reasons) you find yourself rushing to the fight with your cavalry.

[panzerschreck]

did you see also that they take off the "unit multiplier" in the scripts of Rome and Attila, that very useful line allowed us to change easely the number of men per unit, now it's impossible without a mod.

[IrishBlood]

Well, there are opinions and opinions here. In my own, I'd rather have them capturing the feel of the tabletop battles rather than that of the setting (the artwork, the lore). What that means is that I think it would be interesting to see slightly smaller units in which, as a countermeasure, soldiers were more detailed, individualistic, powerful, bigger.

In the warhammer tabletop game, you still have regiments, but each soldier is still an individual model, and it is good enough as an individual. In TW you just have a bunch of expendable grunts you don't give a fig about.


Just so you get my point, take the Starcraft terran marines for instance, instead of a unit of 200 of these:




I'd rather have a unit of 80 of these:



Note it's exactly the same type of unit.


I think the wings of liberty trailer did a great job at making a worthless, cheap, basic grunt unit feel detailed, individualistic and powerful.





And the feeling of scale should not be harmed if they designed the enviroment (the maps) accordingly. A 10.000 men battle in total war can feel tiny if you play it in a huge, plain grass map, whereas a 400 men battle in warhammer can feel like an epic, huge engagement if the map is designed accordingly (delimiting open spaces, giving scale references (mountains, buildings, forests...), getting the camera a little bit closer to the ground, etc).

*Also note this suggestion is exclusive to Warhammer, I still like my historical battles with high soldier counts.

See that's were we differ greatly I'm afraid The essence of a total war game is the massive battles. Simple as that. I am a fanatical worshiper of Warhammer lore and read the novels extensively (I'm reading the newest Gotrek and Felix novel now), but I couldn't care in the slightest about the table top game. The table top game is limited to a small size simply because having hundreds/thousands of models would be insanely expensive and/or impossible to actually play with, hence the much more manageable size.

I played the call of warhammer mod for Medieval 2 extensively and I can tell you that the setting is PERFECT for large scale epic battles. Hero units, monsters etc, still have a massive place on the battlefield.

[HigoChumbo]

See that's were we differ greatly I'm afraid The essence of a total war game is the massive battles. Simple as that.

The thing is that I don't think CA has to keep doing Total Wars for the rest of their existence, and I think Warhammer deserved a new approach (with big battles, yes, but not just a total war mod).

If they can do stuff like Alien: Isolation or Viking: Battle for Asgard, I don't see why they couldn't have tried to to a slightly different strategy game, as a new IP rather than yet another total war if you wish.



In any case, as I explain in my post, scale is not absolute, it is really relative. The sense of scale comes is by far more tied to design than to numbers. A 10.000 points army in the tabletop game feels MASSIVE, and we are only talking about ca. 500 soldiers. That's not even 5 full units of Total War. Why does this happen? well, there are several reasons, for starters every isolated soldier has a personality of its own, has a decent amount of detail and forms part of a realy distinctive unit. You also witness the battle from a relatively closer to the ground point of view, while in Total War you are commanding ants more of the time. You have much more delimited maps, it's not just an open plain in the middle of nowhere, you have elements such as houses, forest, mountaints etc creating different delimited areas with different scales, and that does not only create a variable rhythm (6 years of architecture to use that word xD) but also those elements serve as a "frame" for your regiments, as a scale reference (that's why I said the map design in TW:Arena was actually interesting.

I played the call of warhammer mod for Medieval 2 extensively and I can tell you that the setting is PERFECT for large scale epic battles. Hero units, monsters etc, still have a massive place on the battlefield.

I never said that it would be ideal that they reduced the soldier count, but the pc game has limitations same as the tabletop game. In tabletop, as you point out, it's price and manageability. In the pc game it's performance.

As of today, you can't make huge units with highly detailed soldiers if you expect a mid-range machine to run the game, that's why I said that maybe they should reduce the scale, since for this game I think soldier individualism should have more weight than sheer numbers. In any case, I don't care how they do it if they manage to achieve that sense of individualism, in which every grunt or petty goblin feels like a fully fledged, detailed unit with tons of personality. That said, I do believe that if you do want to achieve that sense of individualism, it does not matter how detailed you make the models, making a 500 men unit with them is going to defeat the purpose (although in the other hand it would make powerful units, such as heroes, wizards or big monsters look a lot more epic, since their abilities/attacks would feel really devastating without affecting the outcome of the battle in an overpowered way).

[Collateral_dmg]

Well I don't think they have to reduce the scale. I personaly don't understand why you think that

soldier individualism should have more weight than sheer numbers

I mean why? Do you really feel the individualism in the tabletop game? I really don't, except for the heroes and generals, even if we are closer to the action. Why should

every grunt or petty goblin feels like a fully fledged, detailed unit with tons of personality

? Do you feel that in every other TW game? I don't feel that, and I don't think that's the point of TW games. So I believe that is what you are missing here. If you want a game with smaller scale, you have Mark of Chaos. Does that game satisfy your need for individualism? I'm just curious. I know it's an older game though. But that is esentialy what it would come down to right? In Mark of Chaos the units are smaller, and there is less of them.

I believe there is so much more potential in TW games than that. I saw the leaked footage, and as bad as the quality of the video is, I am not dissapointed in how the units look like and feel really. Yes the horse animations look very silly, but if they do more work I'm sure it will be fine. I don't understand what more do you want from that? How detailed do the Empire state troops have to be? I think that your expectations are not realistic, in terms of what TW3 engine can do. So yeah, I don't think they should reduce the scale for the more detailed units, as I have no problem with detail from what I saw. Again, that is not the point of TW games, to have smaller battles, and I think that's the only reason why they shouldn't do it, no matter the detail.

[AzureNight]

I support 20 unit per army.. Its good all round managable, but if you want bigger battles, I think what medieval 2 kingdoms Expansion done was great idea.. You still control 20 unit, but if you have generals near you in the campaign map, they join the battle too. You control their generals to what to do and that general controls what his unit should do.. That is a great way of commanding very huge armies without deadling with all the micro management.. CA would improve it and implement it ..

That was a great feature, too bad CA prefer to remove features than add them or keep good ones.

[HigoChumbo]

Well I don't think they have to reduce the scale. I personaly don't understand why you think that

Because of performance, it's as simple as that. You can't expect the game to perform as well with highly detailed units.

Also every soldier feels more individual and important the less models there are. I'm not saying they have to reduce the scale from where they are now to achieve individualism, but they should aim to strike a balance between performance, a feeling of grand scale, and making soldiers look like powerful individuals rather than just expendable ants.

Do you really feel the individualism in the tabletop game?

Well, you tell me:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

How many of those look like weak clones to you? What I'm saying is that every individual soldier, while still a part of a unit, should look like a powerful individual. A black orc for instance is by no means a hero, you can have units with dozens of them, and still every single black ork should be a sight to behold.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

And about the balance, for instance, what I said before is that no matter how individual and detailed and awesome you make each single soldier, if you make units of 500 of them and then just play the game completelly zoomed out, they ultimatelly feel like expendable green and black ants, and not awesome, fear-inspiring huge armoured orcs they are ment to be.

Of course there are units that are meant to have more uniformity, but you get the point.

Why should every grunt or petty goblin feels like a fully fledged, detailed unit with tons of personality

They do in the tabletop game:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Do you feel that in every other TW game?

As I said above, I don't see why it had to be a Total War game. My biggest fear when they announced the game is that it might end up being just a total war mod. You can make a strategy game with large battles without making a clone of Total War. Again, if they can make games as different to Total War like Alien: Isolation, I don't see why a slightly different strategy game is so unthinkable.

If you want a game with smaller scale, you have Mark of Chaos

Why would I want to play a lackluster, limited, mediocre game such as Mark of Chaos?

I know it's an older game though. But that is esentialy what it would come down to right?

No. Really, the battles in that game are closer to Age of Empires or any other old-school RTS than to Total War. There is no need to be extremistic. You can achieve individualism and retain a large scale feel.

Also, that game only has fewer and smaller units, it's not like the soldiers themselves feel more like individuals than the current total war soldiers.

I saw the leaked footage, and as bad as the quality of the video is, I am not dissapointed in how the units look like and feel really. Yes the horse animations look very silly, but if they do more work I'm sure it will be fine. I don't understand what more do you want from that?

If we were to judge the game for that video alone, my conclussion would be that they look and feel like any other modern total war game, and that was precisely my biggest concern about the game, so what more would I want from that? honestly, a lot.

I think that your expectations are not realistic, in terms of what TW3 engine can do.

If my expectations were not realistic I wouldn't have asked for a reduction on model numbers to achieve an higher individualism.

And again, I'm not talking about what they should do with TW Warhammer in it's current form (whose design is essentialy already on rails and won't change much from what we've seen), I'm talking about how I think a Warhammer game made by CA should be, and the insistence on keeping the same engine is precisely one of the main barriers to achieve that. I have said plenty of times that Warhammer TW deserved to be designed from the ground up and therefore it was a great moment to make a new engine.


Also, about my expectations, I don't expect that much about TW:Warhammer, what I'm talking about is the hypothetical game I'd like to see made, I don't see why I would have to limit my imagination to speak about that (and in any case I think it's pretty much doable with today's resources).

I don't think they should reduce the scale for the more detailed units, as I have no problem with detail from what I saw.

It's not about how detailed the units are, it's about how detailed the units feel. Good artists can make units look great with mediocre polygon counts and not-so-detailed textures. Animations have a lot to do with that as well.

Again, that is not the point of TW games, to have smaller battles

And again, who said it had to be a TW game. Before the announcement there were people even thinking that they would do a 3d person action game, so why not a different strategy game.

[The Despondent Mind]

Oh this is so Typical Typical CA, Hey let's hardcode and cut freedom to the player for no reason, also regress FTW!!!

[Evan MF]

We have had roughly the same unit sizes and same battles sizes since the original Rome, more than 10 years ago now. To suggest technology has not advanced enough to support larger and larger battles is nonsense. It's entirely because of CA's engine and design and their unwillingness to innovate in the area of scale.

One of the reasons they are reluctant, I believe, is along the lines of what Steph said earlier in the thread. The UI makes it cumbersome to manage just 20 units as it is. The UI has barely changed in all of Total War's history, another area of little innovation. My dream was for Total War to be way bigger by now, but it looks like it'll never progress beyond this unit count and this army scale because of conservatism and the countless ways in which CA will rationalise it to us. As others have pointed out, Warhammer is probably being marketed on the basis of providing 'the visceral tabletop experience in video game form' as a excuse for their self-inflicted development limitations, with this game probably being the smallest scale Total War ever in terms of combatant-count.

It's all quite a shame, even for Warhammer, since every depiction I've seen of Warhammer lore has been unfathomably huge engagements, environments which looks suitable for super-powerful spells to be cast and for very large beast units to ramapage without completely unbalancing a battle. I struggle to see how, with so few combatants and units, spells or beasts are not going to either be overpowered or going to have an incredibly anti-climactic effect - like artillery in previous Total Wars, where 20 people fly up into the air when hit by a projectile and but then all of them get back up again unscathed, only 1 person having died.

[HigoChumbo]

We have had roughly the same unit sizes and same battles sizes since the original Rome, more than 10 years ago now. To suggest technology has not advanced enough to support larger and larger battles is nonsense.

Well, that's the whole point, isn't it? If there were not so many technical limitations, we would also probably have better textures, better models, more different models (aka more soldier diversity within the same unit), more animations and so on.

Warhammer is probably being marketed on the basis of providing 'the visceral tabletop experience, in video game form' as a excuse for their self-inflicted development limitations

I don't know where have you heard that, but if that's the case I can only say that what we've seen so far looks nothing like the tabletop game.

with the game probably being smaller scale than ever.

I doubt the game will be smaller in scale (at least not the battles). As for the campaign map, let's wait and see what they've done. I'd rather have quality over quantity to be honest. For instance, the much more reduced map of Shogun 2 was much better and a lot more enjoyable than that of the previous TW game (Napoleon), and even while being smaller, it felt bigger (more details, exaggerated geographical elements, etc). Rome 2's campaign had the best of both worlds in my opinion (in terms of size and detail, I don't like the campaign mechanics).

[Carl Jung was right]

In other games the 20 units was an unhistorical factor that didn't allow for proper armies representations , but in this game were there is no historical problem ... I have no issues with it . Also it might be more balancing and easier to control 20 units than 30 .

...Not exactly. First of all I view Warhammer as a sort of love ode to pre-Enlightenment era Europe, with all the nasty superstitions and infernal hysterias made manifest. Although you can't seriously debate the merits of the upcoming game in terms of realism, I don't think it is sensible to completely ignore it either. When visiting a Renaissance museum in Milan a couple of years ago, and taking notice of just how insanely mind boggling some of the cultural traditions, beliefs, practices and dress were in that period, the universe of Warhammer didn't appear so far off in comparison. In any case, the writers who came up with that stuff appear to be very very well versed in European history and lore.

Technically speaking much of the same mechanics that govern an army in reality still apply in the Warhammer universe. Sure you have magic and dragons and what not, but mouths still need to be fed and formations still need ordering. There's no reason to assume that many of the core mechanics of warfare were any different from late medieval Europe. So historical commonsense, if not realism, is important to a degree.

Especially considering that many of the factions in the Warhammer universe are literally 1-1 palette swaps from real life.

[NostalgiaFan]

I really don't give a about how one individual solider looks or how graphically impressive he is because honestly, I played Total War because of it's massive scale and loved it for that reason, not because the soldiers looked cool. It is worthless how good one looks when he is just going to get his ass kicked and tossed aside like a piece of rag doll, I would much rather have the most impressive battles on screen then the most coolest looking units in HD definition. This reason is why I still prefer Rome 1's scale to Rome 2's looks, because it is way more impressive to have an army full of 20 240 units battle one of similar size then an army of 20 160 going at it against another. And the funniest thing is that I got more of a individual feeling with the combat of the Rome 1 engine because the battles had a lot more random occurrences due to the units fighting less like they were forced to go 1v1 and were allowed to interrupt another's attack and hit them from behind in a way that did not need over the top animations to do so.

CA has focused too much on the graphics of their games since Empire and I would rather they bring up the scale instead of glistening the screen with the prettiest graphics ever. My favorite game in the entire series is Medieval 1 and that was when they still using ing sprites for gods shake so if you ask me, I would rather a Total War game have massive scale then highly detailed presentation.

[TheDeaconBosco]

Technically speaking much of the same mechanics that govern an army in reality still apply in the Warhammer universe. Sure you have magic and dragons and what not, but mouths still need to be fed and formations still need ordering. There's no reason to assume that many of the core mechanics of warfare were any different from late medieval Europe. So historical commonsense, if not realism, is important to a degree.

LOOK 'ERE! I DUNNU WOT U JUST SED, BUT I SAY U SED NUFF'! ALL DA BOSS NEEDZ TA DO IZ JUST GATHA ALL DA BOYZ 'ROUND TOGETHA AND DEN JUST SMASH DA PUNY 'UMIES/STUNTIES WIT WHATEVA DEY GOT, SPEERZ, ARRERS, CHOPPAZ AN' BORZ TOO. AND THEN AFTA DEY GET BORED A STOMPIN, DA BOYZ JUST PARTY 'TILL DEY CANT STAND NO MORE AN' LEAVE DA GOBBOS TA CLEAN UP 'ROUND THE PLACE. PRETTY SIMPLE INNIT.




Sorry, sorry, I just couldn't help myself, I've roaming on 1d4chan for too long.

[Markas]

With Flying Units and Wizards/heroes to look after, I don't want to lose them in battle because I have five units of joe schmo infantry to babysit. A large number of units would not help with that. Hopefully the units are as customizable as the Table top game and not the generic throwaway TW type. If it's the latter then you may as well have 40 units.

[HigoChumbo]

I really don't give a about how one individual solider looks or how graphically impressive he is because honestly, I played Total War because of it's massive scale and loved it for that reason, not because the soldiers looked cool.

Care to explain then the whole point behind making a Warhammer game rather than sticking to normal, historical strategy? What's the point behind making the change from human to orcs if you just care about grand strategy? Do you fancy commanding green ants instead of pink ants? Do you want your huge superpowerful griffon to be just one a slightly bigger dot in your usual sea of dots?

And no, Total War is not just about big battles, it's also about immersion, and it's really hard to become immersed if the setting is not designed/adapted properly. You can't pretend to adapt history with exactly the same parameters as an over-the-top, high-fantasy setting like Warhammer.

not because the soldiers looked cool

There is a difference between making soldiers look cool just for the sake of it, and make soldiers feel like proper individuals. Looking cool is usually a consequence of the later, not the cause.

I would much rather have the most impressive battles on screen then the most coolest looking units in HD definition

As I've said several times, scale is relative, not absolute. A 10.000 soldier battle can look tiny in Total War's grassland map, a 500 soldier tabletop battle feels like an epic, massive engagement. It's all about map and unit design, not about numbers.

CA has focused too much on the graphics of their games since Empire and I would rather they bring up the scale instead of glistening the screen with the prettiest graphics ever.

It has nothing to do with making the game look better in terms of graphics technology. It's about how to design the game properly to achieve immersion, to depict the very specific, distinctive atmosphere of a setting.

And it's not like "larger scale" equals "better". Would you have a great game like Company of Heroes make everything 10 times larger? It would completelly break the design of that game just for the sake of bigger numbers. You are probably about to say "yes, but they are completelly different games", well exactly, different games require different design approaches, and since what I'm explaining is that in my opinon Warhammer deserved it's own design approach different from your usual, generic Total War, there is no point on applying Total War standard limitations and rules to it. If not, what we would get (and most likely, given what we already know, what we are getting) is essentially just a Total War mod with orcs and trolls instead of Suebi and Romans. That, in my opinion, shows either a total lack of ambition and creativity, or an open recognition of the strong technical/bussiness limitations CA has.

My favorite game in the entire series is Medieval 1 and that was when they still using ing sprites

It's funny you mention that, because in another thread explaining all of this I preciselly used sprite art/animations to justify how you can make a unit look great without bombastic graphics. Take a look if you feel like it:

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...1#post14552550


There are more post on the matter here:

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...1#post14558874

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...1#post14554451

[Fredrin]

I'd be interested to know what people with a greater understanding of the technicalities would make of AMD's Mantle and DX12 have on the future of truly large scale battles. In light of demonstrations like this one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9UACXikdR0

Maybe not as applicable in the case of Warhammer... But take as an example the battle of Thermopylae, where even modern estimates of the Persian force extend as high as 300,000. Units capped at 240 can't hope to capture the sheer enormity of such an encounter. I would like to see a series like TW at least attempt it , particularly if those technical limitations are becoming less limiting...

[♘Top Hat Zebra]

snippy

I definitely disagree. I've never gotten the sense of a massive engagement from, say, Star craft or Warcraft or any such thing. Even with Mount and Blade the battles feel small, and I've increased the battle size to 500 men.

Even M2TW feels small compared to the bigger battles I fight in Warscape games. With double unit size and double stack size, a single stack is almost 10,000 men. I've had battles with upwards of 60,000 men total.

I don't think each person should have individual personality on the battle map. I don't think that would really add anything.

However, I do think we can have the best of both worlds. I've long wished that each individual regiment of soldiers would have it's own leader. That would be amazing.

[HigoChumbo]

I definitely disagree. I've never gotten the sense of a massive engagement from, say, Star craft or Warcraft or any such thing. Even with Mount and Blade the battles feel small, and I've increased the battle size to 500 men.

When did I put those games as examples for a good scale feeling? The only reference I've given to large scale with lower soldier count is high point tabletop battles, and the usual size and setup of the "map" has a lot to do with that (but also the soldier design and the huge unit diversity).

I don't think each person should have individual personality on the battle map. I don't think that would really add anything.

To what? To Total War? or to a Warhammer game?

Because I think it would add to a Warhammer game.

However, I do think we can have the best of both worlds.

That's the idea, but you need the game to run in PCs other than the ones at NASA.

[♘Top Hat Zebra]

That's the idea, but you need the game to run in PCs other than the ones at NASA.

I don't see the difficulty with it at all. Not from a technical standpoint, at least.

Each individual unit has a captain, who has a name and ages, and who will have a separate experience pool from the rest of the unit, to make a different between veteran soldiers and veteran officers.

Perhaps you could even create a system in which they could be promoted if desired to become generals.

Empire already did something similar, I believe. If you promoted a general from a more experienced unit, you got a better general.


And I think massive battles are good for both Warhammer and Total War. A Mongol horde and a Greenskin horde are both less impressive if there's only five hundred of them, instead of ten thousand.

[RoofLizard]

I think options are always good, I'd use 10 units or less maybe myself. I find organizing large armies at the start of TW battles really tedious, but I understand why some people would like to fill the screen with massive shoota boyz armies.