Azhag quest battle video released

[hep]

How do you go from blackfire pass, to thundering falls, to this?

You take a right after the grey mountains

[Markas]

Should not explain the far poorer textures, geometry and complete lack of detail in every unit or the terrain. Lighting looks almost non existant nevermind as the cause.

If you say so son. To me it's just the garish lighting that's the problem.What unit are you referring to, specifically? The orc units look the same as in previous videos.

[HigoChumbo]

Empire was a game about 1700's guns. How is transitioning to Warhammer not innovation? What game series do you play where there is so much difference between games to enable you to say anything like the following? I'm genuinly interested, although I'm assuming the following is just BS.

Actually, I kind of agree with him there. Yes there have been changes of settings and improvements, yet those are expected from any game deserving the title of sequel. But there has been little innovation in the franchise overall (with the exception of Empire, probably), specially in the battle side of it. The formula is getting quite old and they are doing nothing to change that. As for the campaigns, they do evolve, but they are still the weakest part of the franchise, and they get old really quick (which to me is proof of poor game design).

They are developing Total War as EA develops FIFA. There are no major changes, just tiny convenient addtions every now and then. Yes, with Warhammer there are some formulaic changes, and those are welcome additions, but the merit is not in adding features which were obviously required to depict the setting, the merit is in implementing them properly, and so far all the new stuff is quite disappointing (flying, magic). In the end, when you zoom out, unless you have a giant or something somewhere, the game plays and feels exactly like Attila and Rome 2. I'm sure that if given freedom and resources, no decent creative director would have designed an identical combat sistem for a game about classical Rome and a game about Warhammer. That's where my issue lies. This does not feel at all like the fulfilment of a cohesive creative concept, this feels like a mod made by proffessionals.


A good counter example would be to say that Call of Duty has innovated the franchise by going from modern warfare to future combat, when in truth the base game is almost the same in a different setting.

Does anyone else feel that the humans units are poorly done? I really like what they did with the Orcs and Dwarves, their units look good and like they belong in Warhammer.

The human units for both the Empire and Bretonnia are too tall and skinny, they don't capture the feel of Warhammer very well and look like they don't belong.

I don't like how they have done the orcs either. But then again, I've disliked most of CA's unit designs since Rome 2 (many of their human models look weird to me). In any case, I'm really happy by their work with most beasts, they've done a superb modeling and animation job there. Dwarfs look quite good too.

Warhammer humans are supposed to be something out of a monty python sketch.
Play warcraft if you want roided up humans.

I don't agree. These don't look bad because they are meant to look like that, these look bad because of poor artistic implementation. As said above, I have had the same issue with all TW games since Shogun 2, no by no means specific to Warhammer's design.


Also:

What if Darren was not playing on a high end computer? What if he was playing on a medium end one?

Seeing how carefully CA measures everything they say and publish, the real question here would be "why the hell would they do that?".

The units look ugly and unpolished like in Empire.

I liked the unit design of Empire back in the day. I remember being left openmouthed seeing a unit of spanish grenadiers marching into battle in one of the trailers. Units don't have to be polished to look good, and you have proof of that in games like starcraft 2 or warcraft 2, which have very low polygon models (really, starcraft 2 is a gorgeous game and if you see the unit renders they could be from a 2001 game). A talented artist who knows what he is doing will make a much better looking unit with few poligons and low res textures, while a mediocre artist will make mediocre units no matter how much you pump up the poligon count and the texture quality. Well crafted models, with good proportions, textures and animations are much more important for a game to look good than raw tech power.

For instance, there are units in Medieval 2 which, in my opinion, look way better than some of Rome 2's units, despite all their crispy graphics and detailed models:

Medieval 2:




Rome 2:





Another good example, Doom 3 (2004) vs Natural Selection 2 (2012):

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

DOOM3:




NATURAL SELECTION 2:





DOOM3:




NATURAL SELECTION 2:





DOOM3:






NATURAL SELECTION 2:





DOOM3:







NATURAL SELECTION 2:

Now you are just ing kidding about landscapes. The battle had a giant orc statue, two intersecting streams that we haven't seen in TW previously. There haven't been any shallow streams in total war, its always been a bridge substitute if you didn't build roads.
I personally found the music to be inaudible because Darren was talking all over the damn video

Guys, it feels like you are not even trying to understand what he is saying. Yes, the features are obviously different, but the maps look technically exactly the same as in previous games. It's the same engine so I don't know where the surprise comes from.

Would be incredibly unprofessional for it to be played on a low end system in pre release footage and what appears to be an interview. It is either a downgrade to be able to run on more systems, or low settings because the game runs like a turd. But then if it ran poorly on anything but a high end system there is no reason to release this at all unless they are lowering our expectations, just look at the reaction.

That was my initial thought, actually.

[warl0rd13]

To be honest, Warhammer, FB or 40K, always looks worse in bright environments, and Total War has never been an very good looking series, especially at a distance. Combine the two and you have a rather sub-par looking game.

Still, every other vid we've seen of WH:TW has been good looking so I'll give this one a pass. The magic looks neat, my only complaint is that the Purple Sun of Xereus was underwhelming, I expected something flashier from the Lore of Death's most powerful spell.

Also I will defend the AI here; they said that if you deploy closer to the enemy they will group up defensively, which makes sense as the player would be within range of their artillery, forcing the player to come to them, but because they kept back the AI decided to play aggressive, and we saw that AI is now better with their cav, hitting them a a full charge and then breaking off, and then having a another unit of cav charge at the weakened unit.

Don't get me wrong; the AI is still far from great but it IS showing improvement.

[HigoChumbo]

To be honest, Warhammer, FB or 40K, always looks worse in bright environments

I insist it depends on how talented the artists are:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I believe complaints about graphics come from a mixture of average unit design, the game not being maxed out apparently, and the video being recorded poorly despite the label of 1080p 60fps. And of course the video being zoomed out most of the time, which I agree has never been the ideal scenario for modern TW games (if my memory serves me right, this what not such an issue in the Medieval 2 era). In any case, again, graphics are the least of my concerns for Warhammer, and I'm sure the game will look much better than this. Games almost never look as well in gameplay trailers as when you are playing them on your computer (for instance I find World of Warcraft to be rather pleasant in-game and the videos look awful).

[hep]

Also I will defend the AI here; they said that if you deploy closer to the enemy they will group up defensively, which makes sense as the player would be within range of their artillery, forcing the player to come to them, but because they kept back the AI decided to play aggressive, and we saw that AI is now better with their cav, hitting them a a full charge and then breaking off, and then having a another unit of cav charge at the weakened unit.

Don't get me wrong; the AI is still far from great but it IS showing improvement.

I think your explanation that the AI is doing what it is supposed to do, is worse than if the AI was broken.
A broken quest battle AI can be fixed, badly designed AI will not be fixed. It will be present through out.

Regardless, the bretonnian army made a bad fundamental choice that should have been easy to get right, all the player had to do to make those bad choices happen was occupy high ground, not exactly "gaming" the system.

[warl0rd13]

True, it at least LOOKS smarter than what I usually expect from the TW AI, to me at least, but I digress.

[Markas]

Darren did explain how and what the Brettonians would do (in this case attacking in three waves- one army and two expeditions), so I guess there's little leeway as to what the quest battle AI can do. They charge and then default to standard AI. Seems pretty tedious if you know what you are going up against time and again though.

Anyway, for those of you questioning the power of good lighting-

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[econ21]

Darren did explain how and what the Brettonians would do (in this case attacking in three waves- one army and two expeditions), so I guess there's little leeway as to what the quest battle AI can do.

Yeah, I think these quest battles are scripted. In Attila, the AI usually does a pretty good job about keeping its units together and timing its cavalry charges on the flanks to coincide with the infantry closing in the centre. I'd be surprised if the AI throws its cavalry away while the infantry is stationary far away.

Attila AI is pretty bad at handling onagers, though, so the Brets wasting their trebuchets may be something we see in standard battles.

[hep]

http://uk.ign.com/videos/2016/02/29/...s-quest-battle

slightly better quality version

Darren did explain how and what the Brettonians would do (in this case attacking in three waves- one army and two expeditions), so I guess there's little leeway as to what the quest battle AI can do. They charge and then default to standard AI. Seems pretty tedious if you know what you are going up against time and again though.

I hate the thought of the enemy units coming in waves.

Someone at CA has had the bright idea that the battles weren't fun enough, so they needed to add fun features such as: enemy comes in waves, faster battles so we aren't waiting around, magic general/unit abilities (second wind etc. in historical TW), torches for siege battles so that we can immediately storm castles and any other arcade bollocks that you can think of.

This dumbing down of total war has resulted in orcs surrounded by green fart clouds and goblins firing super soakers.

[Markas]

I hate the thought of the enemy units coming in waves.

He also says if you act aggressively the cavalry forms up with the rest of the army and presumably doesn't charge forward like tools.

This dumbing down of total war has resulted in orcs surrounded by green fart clouds

What...exactly...is that supposed to be? It's just weird.

I like that magic can miscast but Joey says it goes off automatically but can damage your hero... but the spell in the vid doesn't seem to go off. Didn't get that bit.

[Sharpe]

[warl0rd13]

Also, please tell me I'm not the only one who's annoyed by how the guy keeps saying the Brets are using catapults when they are clearly fielding trebuchets?

[ostendadler]

On a purely marketing/Promo level this leaves me with a wtf feeling in the stomach. Why are you doing this to us. Clearly all of us here suffer from post-traumatic trauma from the last launch they did and I see nothing here that convinces me that its gonna be different this time.

CA you are making us doubt even more when:

- You showcase a clearly offensive race in a cowering in the corner technique. So far that's the second quest battle played in a defending role if we count blackfire pass.
- The product looks even less polish than in the dwarf battle or blackfire pass. Seriously we are two month away and it feels like a year away.
- The units are still copy paste clones. Seriously how come unpaid small teams of modders can produce more varied units than you guys. Unacceptable we are in 2016 not in 1995 in command and conquer!
- You stick to some cartoonish color schemes when we are in a mature universe
- The banners of the orcs are so overexposed I felt like they where routing all the time.
- The units are very spaced out for a "horde" like army.
- If this is a quest battle what is so unique about it? No cinematic, no specific stronghold to capture of objective to complete aside from a good old route. There's nothing unique.
- terrain looks like medieval in low res.
- Why are you barely zooming in to show us animations? Compared to blackfire pass i've seen very little here.
- If the video is so low res because of youtube why not post it on Vimeo? I mean seriously if my company published something like that I'd lose business and be out of work in a day.
- Show us how the AI acts when you attack!
- Flying lords seem to be the ultimate trolling tool to destroy artillery left undefended. (unless the AI does that back to us I think artillery will have a short life span in battle)
- Battle time is way too short but hey it seems I'm part of a minority of players who like a more lengthy fight.
- Magic misfire in difficult for the AI but not for us? hmmmm
- How is the AI using magic spells?
- I understand they are trying to give unit "profile" a starcraft look alike but seriously they are not saying anything witty or react when clicked on.


The things I liked:
- Speech was fun and corny
- The cavalry tried to go around and flank which is nice to see happening again
- artillery seems to be quite punishing
- Magic looks nice
- Orcs unit look more polished and eye pleasing
- cavalry impact looks punched up
- The UI


The unexplained:

- how big is the battle map.
- why has the AI got 3 deployment zones? Are they forced to place units in all 3?
- What is the purpose of this quest battle
- weather is it dynamic?
- What is the objective of the AI in this battle? If its just routing you then how is it different than any other battle?



What I think would be a nice addition:

- More setting/cinematic for quest battles
- More battle sounds
- riots in the orc army if you "camp" for too long forcing you to advance
- A big ass war drum/horn to sound battle start !
- Permanent "artillery" impact on the battlefield / same for arrows
- crows circling the battlefield or some kind of wolf packs attacking units hiding in the woods would be a cool "random surprise" feature (perhaps even beastmen in hiding)
- animosity between orcs and goblins

What I am hoping is not gonna happen:

- a get more detailed units with a DLC
- underwhelming quest battles
- a genocide of cinematics and videos
- fast battles way too fast
- color schemes out of a disco dance championship for armies
- clone wars episode 2
- "run you fools" AI moves towards you (no artillery on the orc side so no rush)
- absence of lore

[Beregond]

the majority of Orc units (like 80%) should definitely have the "may charge without orders" trait to prevent you from camping and 'playing hummies'. I can't remember though if there's still a trait like this since Med2.

Right now, I see no huge tactical difference in playing Orcs compared to Humans or Dwarfs (well, the latter have no cav).
But hey, this is CA, why would they care with fun and immersive ideas

[panzerschreck]

It's a pity that soldiers are so clonish, if we can't mod all that, it would be awful...Bretonnians are specially clones and i absolutly don't recognize what is bretonnia for me! All the same, all the same colours, horrible!

[Påsan]

Yeah CA always go overboard with dull monocoloured faction colours. See age of charlemagne. Modders are always required to clean up and diversify units after them.

Bretonian infantry should not be blue and yellow. (Yuck!) They should be shades of brown with some occational chainmail.

Compare these guys

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

With these guys from the Medieval Kingdoms mod for Attila (They are pretty much the same unit)

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Revoran]

This series hasn't innovated once since Empire. The closest thing to actual new content came with Fall of the Samurai. I could be watching a video for Empire here. Same ugly landscapes, same embarrassingly small unit sizes, same ugly effects and trails (I know they can be turned off, but if that's the best trail they can come up with it's pretty poor), same boring music, same ugly units, same dumb AI (cavalry charged without the main army why?), same non-existent collision detection, same old disappointment.

The Total War series is dead. This video is so scripted you'd have to be a corpse to not realise, and even being so scripted it still looks crap. I'll reiterate what I said for Rome II a couple of years ago - it reeks of amateur.

And yet you'll still buy and play it, just as you bought and played Rome II and Attila.

[SKSlave]

And yet you'll still buy and play it, just as you bought and played Rome II and Attila.

I (regretfully) bought Rome II. Learnt my lesson, still haven't bought Attila. Haven't preordered Warhammer and have no intention of doing so.

Any reason why you're talking garbage right now?

[Revoran]

I (regretfully) bought Rome II. Learnt my lesson, still haven't bought Attila. Haven't preordered Warhammer and have no intention of doing so.

Any reason why you're talking garbage right now?

Any reason you're still here?

Or do you just enjoy spending your free time on games you admit you have no intention of buying?

No one cares about your angry rants, mate. Try coming up with some sort of reasoned analysis/criticism.