Can we rule the world? New info on regional occupation.

[craziii]

I would love the option. orcs, orcs everywhere!

[Twido]

Well, a lot of the Orc settlements are actually former Dwarf holds that were taken from the Dwarfs thousands of years ago.

That being said, it would be nice if CA just put in an option to make all settlements conquerable.

I'm not sure that they can "just" put this option in. From the limited amount I have seen so far, it looked like each settlement had its own graphic so that it fit in well with the game map and looked really slick. If that is the case then there will not be any art assets for certain cities being owned by certain races. To change this could require a lot more work than just changing a few lines of code.

Another example of slick presentation over gameplay features.

[emcdunna]

I think the players should get to customize features of the campaign before starting. Like can I turn off those graphics when you convert a dwarf settlement to an orc one? Probably not. But it would be nice if we could specify whether we wanted to be able to conquer the whole map, make alliances between empire/vampires, or do other non-canon sandbox type things. Like convert the empire to worship ulric instead of sigmar

[HigoChumbo]

The official answer is here: http://wiki.totalwar.com/w/Regional_Occupation_Blog

[|Sith|Galvanized Iron]

Another benefit that seems overlooked is that this means less provinces to rule. Less provinces means less of the endless rinse and repeat construction orders you start every turn with. That constantly re-occuring and mindless process has always been one of the major drags of a Total War campaign. For that reason I think less provinces to rule is a very good idea.

[cenkiss]

Another benefit that seems overlooked is that this means less provinces to rule. Less provinces means less of the endless rinse and repeat construction orders you start every turn with. That constantly re-occuring and mindless process has always been one of the major drags of a Total War campaign. For that reason I think less provinces to rule is a very good idea.

How is that a benefit? If you dont want more lands then dont conquer them. With that kinda thought why even take cities from orcs as a dwarf?

[|Sith|Galvanized Iron]

How is that a benefit? If you dont want more lands then dont conquer them. With that kinda thought why even take cities from orcs as a dwarf?

Ehm????? Ever considered that the mechanics of the game, including victory conditions, have always been set up in such a way that it is pretty much necessary to conquer provinces? Even if WTW would have different victory conditions, it would still be so beneficial to conquer provinces that you would feel forced to do it. Besides I don't mind conquering territories, I just dislike managing them. It is all good at the start, but once you have 50 or so provinces you are just clicking "next next" whilst issuing construction orders by reflex.

This was always one of the strengths of the Shogun entries. With map not having more than 60 provinces you weren't put in that tedious situation until the very end of your campaign. In Attila you are already long bored with province and character management by the time you hit minor victory.

[async]

Just to share it:

https://forums.totalwar.com/discussi...nal-occupation

[Markas]

The black and green shaded areas in the north are Norsca, the blue indicates the mountains and Badlands with Holds that Greenskins and Dwarfs can own, and the white areas are regions that all the other races and factions find hospitable-

[Derfel von Saljeth]

Guys, in the article i read "new global recruitment feature"....what does that mean?

[Markas]

Basically you can recruit out in the field at a greater cost I think. Not, sadly, the return to the Med 2 system.


As for the blog, fewer province managements I'm fine with as at mid-late game they simply become tedious and CA has somehow managed to never make that aspect much fun or involving. Instead they just *shudder* streamlined it. As for their verbose reasoning actually as lore goes it isn't bad... but using lore as a reason seems more an excuse in this case to shore up game balancing issues. I don't think I've ever conquered the entire map in a TW game and to my knowledge that has never been a victory condition anyway. I suspect the number of people that have the fortitude to do so regulary is quite small anyhow. Using the lore as a reason and then contradicting that in the same blog with things like 'it's for gameplay' or 'it's still a TW game' just leaves me with the impression doing otherwise would upset the balance of the game and lore issues are just a pretext.

[Sharpe]

This sounds fantastic, so glad they acknowledged the slog auto resolve fest in the mid/late game.

[Manu La Canette]

I always despised the idea of covering the whole map in one colour or steamrolling everything. I like how, in last titles (Attila mainly), this is dealt with: very difficult to expand before you've dealt with already conquered lands (rebellions, squalor, happiness and politics). The victory objectives (progressive) are well designed in my opinion according to the played faction (the goals actually vary and some factions ain't even that much on land goals at all).
I always try to reproduce history anyway (must be the historian in me) and tweak it here and there, but I happen to hate things too far from reality or plausibility, like Hurons in Bavaria and so on... So I'm rather fine with this lore-friendly occupying system: it means more defensive wars to keep what's your instead of pointless and boring sieges to cover the map in your colour.
My main issues right now are on rosters' depth and immersion stuff like "no banners/musicians/officers/champions" or the Empire state troops' look in general. I also can't wait to see what Vampire Counts are looking and playing like to settle a better opinion about the game (all this buggy launching state aside, because it's gonna happen).

[Lord Baal]

I'm with Iron on this. If only to pacify regions. You don't need to colonize them, simply wiping out the province and "holding it" while not building anything is enough. In Warhammer Total War it could be inferred that if you conquest a ork territory you wipe out all of them but given the inhospitality of the territory you don't actually occupy it, so it shouldn't add to the treasury or anything. Perhaps only basic military buildings like an patrol outpost should be erected, which would mean you leave a few brave patrolling the area or something.

So no civilian population, no city development or anything, simply a buffer region of a wasteland.

[PeonKing]

Basically you can recruit out in the field at a greater cost I think. Not, sadly, the return to the Med 2 system.


As for the blog, fewer province managements I'm fine with as at mid-late game they simply become tedious and CA has somehow managed to never make that aspect much fun or involving. Instead they just *shudder* streamlined it. As for their verbose reasoning actually as lore goes it isn't bad... but using lore as a reason seems more an excuse in this case to shore up game balancing issues. I don't think I've ever conquered the entire map in a TW game and to my knowledge that has never been a victory condition anyway. I suspect the number of people that have the fortitude to do so regulary is quite small anyhow. Using the lore as a reason and then contradicting that in the same blog with things like 'it's for gameplay' or 'it's still a TW game' just leaves me with the impression doing otherwise would upset the balance of the game and lore issues are just a pretext.

Huh. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem kind of disappointed that they are using the lore to fix a gameplay issue. I think that's a good thing. In fact, that's a great thing. It's jarring when you have the sort of 'invisible wall' gameplay fixtures that don't really make sense with the lore/historical context but have to be included to stop the game from being broken. The fact that it makes sense lorewise, and makes the gameplay more challenging/diverse, is awesome. It's going to be less apparent than just being like 'uhh, yeah we don't show Constantinople on the map because... the game is about Charlemagne this time.' If it makes sense that the Vamps aren't going to try to take Orc Badlands, and it makes it so the AI has a chance at resurgence causing you issues later in the game, then that's good.

I like that CA is not afraid to change up core gameplay mechanics. I started with Shogun 2, where everybody has the same tech tree, but the way you tech/your religion changes your army composition was interesting, then moving onto straight unbalanced factions in R2 as would be historically accurate, and then having some factions that only exist to destroy other ones as hordes in Attila, and then now this sort of set up where you can't really conquer all the map giving the AI a chance to creep back in the pictures and keep you on your toes. I mean, I hope it's worth it. It's going to be really stupid if you are the Empire, you decimate the greenskins, and then like... 20 turns later you just start getting harassed by like 5 unit stacks where you just fight the same siege battles over and over again(Similar to the constant Rome vs. Rome rebellions as the WRE in the same towns in Attila) That would suck, I hope it's not like that, but I'm interested to see how it pans out.

[Beregond]

it's hilarious how CA writes long-winded paragraphs explaining why restricted occupation is sooo lore friendly, but then at the same time craps on the lore with starting positions
perfect example of corporate hypocrisy.

Thus said, I rather like this decision, esp when concerning Dwarfs (though I'd have roleplayed it anyway)

[Markas]

Huh. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem kind of disappointed that they are using the lore to fix a gameplay issue. I think that's a good thing. In fact, that's a great thing. It's jarring when you have the sort of 'invisible wall' gameplay fixtures that don't really make sense with the lore/historical context but have to be included to stop the game from being broken.

It's the using lore to justify it that I take issue with. Let's take the starting positions thing- lorewise some of the factions Legendary Heroes should start elsewhere, such as Azhag. Where's the lore reasoning there? It's just to balance out the gameplay, and that's fine, but using the excuse of lore for one thing and not another is mealy-mouthed and really stretching it.

The fact that it makes sense lorewise, and makes the gameplay more challenging/diverse, is awesome. It's going to be less apparent than just being like 'uhh, yeah we don't show Constantinople on the map because... the game is about Charlemagne this time.' If it makes sense that the Vamps aren't going to try to take Orc Badlands, and it makes it so the AI has a chance at resurgence causing you issues later in the game, then that's good.

And I think that's okay, it's a great way to keep down the mid-late game Mayor simulator 2000 situation, but that's what they need to write, and keep the reasoning consistent rather than switching back and forth.

[Red Dox]

Fun fact: The black and green colours in Norsca represent "different" tribes.
https://twitter.com/totalwar/status/689478313534947328
Question is: Why are there only two tribes/colours?
http://www.bilder-upload.eu/show.php...1453304901.png

-----Red Dox

[HigoChumbo]

I don't mind it, I actually dig the idea of tying some factions to certain geographic features, although with so few of them the concept suffers (since you can only just conquer one or two types of factions, that's rather boring, and the replayability suffers), and specially since I can't help it but feel that this is not really the ideal gameplay concept they had in mind but just a temporary patch, yet another workaround. I have had that idea in mind for some time and Joey's statement makes me feel even more sure about it:

Let me also say that such a divide is not necessarily going to occur in future instalments of the trilogy. It needs to make sense for the game in each case, as I’ll go on to talk about.

That said, although I do dig this kind of asymmetry, I'd rather have those faction particularities depicted as significant advantages/penalties rather than as plain, uninspired hard restrictions. Like, for instance, a cavalry-heavy faction struggling on mountains, or dwarves being unable to set strong defensive positions in empty flatlands and therefore having a hard time expanding there. As for the campaign map, it could be done in ways such as a human faction not being able to fully develop a dwarf mountain hold, or being much more vulnerable to the perils of such settlements, like skaven or goblin underground raids.

I still think their creativity is being vastly held back, most likely because of a lack of resources and the lack of will to change the engine significantly.

[StephanVos]

So why exactly do we call this TOTAL war if we cant occupy the entire map. What a joke!