So no naval battles and no banner carriers. Huge letdown!

[Aquila_Mars]

Except that you asking things they did not before, different animations for difference races/factions for instance.

I think it makes sense to expect that two different species would move differently.

Except that there are not just horses around this time. Are you suggestion that only horse mounted unit should be doing that? That would be a far worse decision.

And yes, just horses would be a bad decision, but hey, they don't have to do anything for horses, only monstrous cavalry, much less work to do just that. (because the horse ones are already done, just needs copy pasting.)

Also fascinated that "looking good" is apparently the only merit something could have, making sense is apparently not a priority.

If making sense is a priority for you, why don't you think it is weird that an orc, something basically larger and bulkier than a human, would have the same attack animations as a human?

PS: I am fascinated as in, I found the flying animations good looking, and rather believable. They were good work, and honestly made sense too that they dog fight each other in the air. Thorgrim's attack animations which are just him swinging his axe and an AOE crescent appearing and hurting enemies is not, it doesn't look good, it doesn't make sense. What were you saying about making sense again?

And your a blindly critiquing them in expectation which are crossing the border to entitlement.

As a consumer, it is entirely within my rights to wish for more, even if the developers are not entitled to deliver it. And I preserve the right to complain about it not being included. Especially considering what they are doing is not an original idea, it is a 'mirror' for the lack of a better word, of something that exists. So I believe I can ask for things that exist in the concept of what they are making.

But then again, you are the kind of people who are the embodiment why I can't take most critique seriously.

Yes? Is that so? I liked what I saw about the game so far, but there were things that annoyed me, as such I criticise these things and I don't think I need to point out every time that my criticism is my own personal opinion.

junk of the critique base on a insane interpretation of a sentence which doesn't say what you and other claim.

This sentence made no sense to me, you'll have to clarify.


-
PS: If you think that we should focus on good parts, yes and no. Good parts are there and worthy of praise, that doesn't make the bad parts immune to critisism.

[qylees]

It's funny how they explaining lack of possibility to dismount because of tabletop rules, and at the same time they don't making standard-bearers (musicians, etc.), who are - as far as I'm concerned - rather important in TT, because "omg there is no time/manpower".
I think that is inconsequence on their part.

I'm waiting for that game, but some of their decisions seems to me as the huge steps back in Total War franchise.

[Saurus]

It's funny how they explaining lack of possibility to dismount because of tabletop rules, and at the same time they don't making standard-bearers (musicians, etc.), who are - as far as I'm concerned - rather important in TT, because "omg there is no time/manpower".
I think that is inconsequence on their part.

I'm waiting for that game, but some of their decisions seems to me as the huge steps back in Total War franchise.

Afaik they never explained the "no dismount" thing with TT rules. I think the more obvious reason is that if they make units able to dismount they need to introduce to many new variables. I mean a dismounted knight is just a foot soldier with euqal stats but different movementspeed. But if you dismount a demigryph knight? Or Karl-Franz from deathclaw? So by removing the dismount button as a whole they're indeed consistent.

[ScipioGermanicus]

I think it makes sense to expect that two different species would move differently.

Does it? No matter if orc, human, or vampire: you swing cut and stap with the weapons.

And yes, just horses would be a bad decision, but hey, they don't have to do anything for horses, only monstrous cavalry, much less work to do just that. (because the horse ones are already done, just needs copy pasting.)

You do realize that only very few races actully use horse? No of course you didn't.

If making sense is a priority for you, why don't you think it is weird that an orc, something basically larger and bulkier than a human, would have the same attack animations as a human?

" No matter if orc, human, or vampire: you swing cut and stap with the weapons. "

PS: I am fascinated as in, I found the flying animations good looking, and rather believable. They were good work, and honestly made sense too that they dog fight each other in the air. Thorgrim's attack animations which are just him swinging his axe and an AOE crescent appearing and hurting enemies is not, it doesn't look good, it doesn't make sense. What were you saying about making sense again?

Firts if you think that your silme about air animations excuses other ridiculous stances, than no. You can repeat that all day if you want.
And "sense" is also a question of workload and possibilities. What is Thogrim attack suppose to do? If you don't want to use "match animations", which has far worse results, than yes it makes perfect sense.

As a consumer, it is entirely within my rights to wish for more, even if the developers are not entitled to deliver it. And I preserve the right to complain about it not being included. Especially considering what they are doing is not an original idea, it is a 'mirror' for the lack of a better word, of something that exists. So I believe I can ask for things that exist in the concept of what they are making.

Is the one which makes the music. You constantly belittle the work CA did, because your suppose idea were so "easy" to do. While you have no idea of doing it or which cost that has.

Yes? Is that so? I liked what I saw about the game so far, but there were things that annoyed me, as such I criticise these things and I don't think I need to point out every time that my criticism is my own personal opinion.

Being a personal opinion is not the shield you can hide from being sense able.

This sentence made no sense to me, you'll have to clarify.

Look @qylees to see what I mean.
The whole "OMG they don't do banners/muscians" is base on a sentence which talk's about the battle standard. Which is not the same a the standard s used by units.

-
PS: If you think that we should focus on good parts, yes and no. Good parts are there and worthy of praise, that doesn't make the bad parts immune to critisism.

I have no problem with criticisms. I have a problem we arrogant and irrational/untrue criticism.

[StephanVos]

I think CA was wise to leave naval battles out. Never a big fan of them myself. I think most agree CA would be better of spending that time on fleshing out other features.....like banner carriers! lol

[scoicarius]

I mean a dismounted knight is just a foot soldier with euqal stats but different movementspeed. But if you dismount a demigryph knight? Or Karl-Franz from deathclaw?

It's not an unsolvable design challenge. For instance dismounted knights could all have the same stats (this would be the reference point), and the mounted varieties would be (coherent) adjustments of these. So a dismounted demigryph knight would be identical to a dismounted knight.

[Markas]

They are cutting too many to 'reduce' work. If they didn't have the manpower or skill to do these things they shouldn't have attempted Warhammer in the first place.

Oh come on that's bloody ridiculous. They didn't put in a minimally useful ability so they shouldn't have even tried making the game?

*No naval battles (I personally don't care as I never liked naval battles anyway.) but animators don't have to work on these as they are auto battles. -less work.

As has been pointed out, there is hardly any water to float a navy. Just look at the map. What sort of great strategic advantage would you be playing for? The right to slightly inch up the coast a bit? Never mind the fact that Warhammer FB has always been about land battles and the now defunct Man o' War is a seperate game altogether.

*No Standard bearers because it'd take long time to animate for each different race and unit etc. (while this is true, it is far from not doable.) so -less work

I doubt anyone has much of an idea of just how much time this takes to do from scratch without a pre-existing base. Deadlines are but it's far more preferable to omit something you'll only have time to do half-assed. One of the biggest issues with CA is not taking enough time to implement features so waiting for them to do so is far preferable in my eyes.

's sake.

Finally something I agree with.

[Aquila_Mars]

As I said, I really don't care much about naval battles, never liked them anyway.

It is just the attitude I'm seeing that is way too forgiving towards development. It isn't supposed to be easy. It is an art, does an artist use less colors on a painting because it is more effort? No.

I understand there is a deadline, I understand there is a budget, and I'm hardly the most expert at developing a game. But as someone playing TT, I'm just baffled by how they keep saying everything is straight out of the rule books, yet still cut stuff out that are in those very books.

And therein lies the problem. If people start acknowledging things like "oh but thats too much work let them not do it"

Well that is exactly what the Devs will do. They won't do it. And it'll go on and on like this. It isn't what devs don't do that is pissing me off, it is the forgiving attitude.

I'll put it like this, I played Medieval 2, and even though it was just 1 unit that I saw and even though it was just one race in that game (I think it was a prologue/historical mission can't remember well), there were flag bearers. And they just used normal troop attack animations. And that was totally okay too.

Sometimes I question the improvement on these animation works. It really isn't good that graphical fidelity is increased if it is going to take away from gameplay. Can't dismount/mount units because it is too much animation work? Seriously?

Well regardless, hardly anything worth arguing over. We'll see how the game comes out, if it is good with a lot of flavor in as I would like it to be, I'll be a happy camper.

If not and it ends up like rome 2, I won't be surprised.

I win either way. (worth mentioning I really hope it is the former that happens.) I just need this to be more than just a warhammer painting on total war.

There are alot of cool things they are adding, a lot of new things. I'd like them to add even more, because warhammer has a lot of potential. All this taking the easy route is not a good sign.

[Kahvipannu]

Naval battles... I don't know if I expected it to have them. Considering how much every single faction already differentiates from each other, and previous TW-titles, it isn't a simple feature to add in, I can kinda undestand the cut.

But banner-carriers? That sounds really weird, they sound like no brainer to add to WH-armies battling eachother, them being cut, I have to say I'm a bit dissapointed to hear it. I do hope it is possible to mod them in (assuming there is any possibility of doing so), or they will be patched in later, alongside musicians.

[Heinous1]

Maybe it has already been said in the thread but the concept map released by CA makes it pretty obvious that Naval battles will be part of this game at some point in the future. I don't see why it is so necessary to have it at launch considering how different this game already is going to be in comparison to any other TW title.

[Zephyrus]

And if laziness is a really big issue over at CA, then they can restrict the dismount option to lords only, saving them their precious time and resources.

[Dr. Fell]

Are naval battles an integral part of Warhammer lore? According to my understanding, Warhammer is more about bludgeoning your foes to death than trying to pull off Trafalgar with dwarfs.

[Bobington]

Search up Man o' War.

[scoicarius]

Are naval battles an integral part of Warhammer lore? According to my understanding, Warhammer is more about bludgeoning your foes to death than trying to pull off Trafalgar with dwarfs.

The Warhammer world and the Warhammer tabletop (TT) game are two altogether different things. A focus on the TT game alone is more limited in scope, and involves small-scale tactical battles and bludgeoning your foes to death. A focus on the Warhammer world on the other hand allows for a far wider scope, including naval battles and whatnot.

Welcome to the forum.

[Markas]

Are naval battles an integral part of Warhammer lore? According to my understanding, Warhammer is more about bludgeoning your foes to death than trying to pull off Trafalgar with dwarfs.

Man o War was a naval warhammer game but only lasted a few years before being pulled so no, they ain't really. If they add Ulthuan and the New World it'll make sense to have them but my gut is that we won't see them at all.

[Col. Tartleton]

I'm pretty sure there will be army standard bearers, but not unit standard bearers. You can get standards for your heroes.

[Zephyrus]

I'm pretty sure there will be army standard bearers, but not unit standard bearers. You can get standards for your heroes.

How exactly does that work? TT standards are a lot more detailed of course, but there is great potential for money to be made on more customized banners and heraldry. All they need are basic unit standards, and any extra could be used for DLC. Not having them off the bat makes for tons more work in the future.

[Chris P. Bacon]

I would rather have more animations, general flavor, unit diversity etc then banners. I wish they put in basic ones but then they would get yelled at for not making the banners flamboyant enough.

[ScipioGermanicus]

The Warhammer world and the Warhammer tabletop (TT) game are two altogether different things. A focus on the TT game alone is more limited in scope, and involves small-scale tactical battles and bludgeoning your foes to death. A focus on the Warhammer world on the other hand allows for a far wider scope, including naval battles and whatnot.

Welcome to the forum.

Well it's true that the Warhammer world is bigger than just the TT (that includes to some extend the licence), but there are aspects which are barley know. Navy is one of them. Man'o'War is so old that I wouldn't really consider it canon any-more. Besides that we have only Dreadfleet. Other than that, we often have nothing about the navies. Now of course we don't have really much about the tax systems either...

[ScipioGermanicus]

I'm pretty sure there will be army standard bearers, but not unit standard bearers. You can get standards for your heroes.

I tend to think it is the other way round: the text say "battle standard". Which I believe means the standard that heroes bear, will have not a physical representation, but only a gameplay one. In that context it fit that they talk about magical banners, which the overwhelming majority of units can't have unless a bearer joins them (not the command one), which units can be equip.
About the commando unit, the text say actually nothing, even thou the crying here would suggest so.