How does the strategic game play? Like Attila and Rome 2 or like Shogun 2 and MTW2?

[Greasy Dave]

Please, lets not make this thread about which game is better. I'm just looking for feedback about the strategic game play.

I decided to wait before buying. I've been reading reviews and watching lets plays. I like a lot of what I see and read concerning the battles, units, factions etc. But my big hesitation is the strategic game. For me that's the biggest factor in my playing TW.

My personal preference is for the type of strategic game play we saw in Shogun 2 and Medieval - I had to plan my settlements, I had to plan where to focus on military buildings, how to get them to grow so I could upgrade and expand and how to get reinforcements from there to the front line. I enjoyed this.

My own personal experience of vanilla Attila and Rome 2 (even at V.Hard) was that I didn't need to make any of these kinds of strategic planning decisions - i never had to plan reinforcements, getting upgraded units etc. There was balancing of squalor but that was a different mechanic. I'm not going to start explaining why I found I didn't need to do this in Attila etc, because i don't want this to descend into some kind of argument about which has the best strategy level. I personally didn't enjoy Rome or Attila -they bored me quickly. My personal subjective view.

So though I like what I've seen about factions and battles in Warhammer, I'm a bit neutral about the warhammer strategic layer. Some reviews seem to say that the strategic layer is simpler still than Rome 2 - if that is possible.

So my question is, anybody who's playing Warhammer, who also prefers the strategy design of earlier TW's to Rome and Attila, how does Warhammer strategy play in comparison? I know it's early days yet and most people won't have had much time to play it. Also, I know different factions have different needs so they all play different. This all sounds interesting to me. But what I'm wondering is, are you having to plan things like reinforcements, military buildings, how to get your unit buildings etc? How to get your reinforcements to the front line? Or is that all automated like in the last two games?

I can get a good deal on the game before May 31st. I hadn't planned to buy it until a Steam sale but the positive reviews have made me interested. However, I'm curious about this one aspect of the game before I make my decision.

Also, if you loved Attila and Rome 2 strategy, then I don't think your views will help me make up my mind. I don't mean anything negative by that. But game preferences are subjective and it'd be more helpful to hear what someone who shares my preference feels about Warhammer.

Thanks

[AnimaMea]

I'd be wary of the initial reviews, both good and bad. Unless you're really keen on the setting, my advice would be to give people some time to let the game sink in, as it'll take time for some people to decide whether the campaign's lacking in depth, given the new, flashy range of units to choose from

[geala]

I played a little bit as the Empire. The building browser is rather streamlined but a bit more complicated than in TW:A I would say. You get your units from four different building lines combined with two additional supporting lines. You get musketeers for example from your normal infantry barracks when you also have a gunsmith in the province. The big intellectual task is to take knowledge of the shocking fact that your normal infantry/ranged troop barracks can be built to the top tier in level 3 settlements, other lines (cavalry, sorcerers) and the support lines top tier buildings need level 4 or 5 settlements. Main settlements go up to level 5, the rest of the province towns to level 3. Maybe that could mean something for the best location to build what where.

Otherwise it is just a problem of space and weighting recruitment against public order against income (which all is a bit toned down compared to TW:A for example, not to my pleasure). I cannot judge wether the task would please you or not. I will stay away from a comparison of the games, I only should say that I see TW:A as the best TW game so far, far better for me than M2TW or S2TW, so we may differ in assessments.

What I like is that you can build walls in small settlements in TW:WH (like in Attila), but at the cost of a building spot. So you could create perhaps fortified border towns. Wether the walls are useful I did not test till now. BTW units refresh over time automatically, like in TW:A (a feature I praise, to avoid the pesky reinforcement micro of earlier games).

[Baldwin of Jerusalem]

From what I've seen on my Empire campaign you will meet armies at the start which will be at least as good as your own because the AI builds and maintains full stacks which are well balanced with the best troops it can field. Battles feel quite important and losing one will cost you badly. You will need to pan carefully as far as settlement development goes as you need money as well as unlocking high tier units to give you a battle advantage. I have found that sieges are hard to win on autoresolve as you will not have an advantage until you've besieged long enough to cause attriton to the enemy army and garrisons are now quite robust, (20 units at the highest building level). Also the AI will always send relief armies to the aid of besieged garrisons and seems to do it very quicky as well.

Some aspects are dumbed down from previous games; there are no downsides for instance to upgrading your city levels, which I happen to like as the game develops better and food is no longer present, which I didn't think added anything anyway. There has been an attempt to make your campaigns develop according to a kind of self written narrative which means that if you are at war with a faction you will start to get actual objective incentives to killing/wounding a certain enemy lord or taking certain settlements which happens with any particular faction you choose to be at war with, not just ones that the AI decides to factor in.

If I had to compare it to other previous releases I would say it is more like Shogun 2 than anything else. It is a signifigant step forward from that though. I really like it.

[Stangler]

The strategy in province development revolves around straight forward decisions concerning growth, happiness, income, and defense. Plus the military buildings you want.

You want growth so you can build better buildings and get to your high end units. You have to choose to spend growth on your minor settlements or your main city in the region.

You need income to afford new buildings and units. Sacking, raiding and just getting into fights can be a great way to get money. This is really key.

You need defense to prevent the enemy from coming in an wrecking your stuff as soon as your army goes on the offensive.

Happiness becomes a bigger issue as chaos invades and you play on higher difficulty settings.

In the end the biggest decision you will make is probably which higher tier units you will unlock first and where you will unlock them. Often times it will be at your capital which is a couple turns of movement away from your main armies.

I really like the more complicated city building mechanics for games like Attila but I really like how Warhammer works as well. You have some decisions to make but you are not micro managing too much.

[Thelann]

With the Empire, regarding settlement management, the question comes down to two options. Either go economic or military. I have the feeling it is similar with other races.

This is because you will need several buildings to unlock the most powerful units. Let´s for example consider four high tier units
Unit 1 needs building A and B
Unit 2 needs building B and C
Unit 3 needs Building C and D
Unit 4 needs Building C and A

So if you want to optimize the use of buildings, you will tend to regroup them in the same province, for sake of cost efficiency (some of those can bear a hefty price tag). Then, another consideration is that some provinces have specialties, and these specialties open unique building chains. Some of them are more economic, some of them military, some of them can be used for both.

In the end, the feeling is quite similar to shogun 2. You try to define potential military provinces from position and specialty(ies), then develop some of them and put the rest to sustain your economy.

...or you just burn everything to the ground because it is a damn warhammer game.

[nameless]

Total Warhammer does some new stuff though like Global Recruitment and capability of replenishing in enemy lands.

I'm finishing up as Empire on VH and I made Reikland my main economic and military might with a southern Bretonnian province focused on cavalry.

Global recruitment allows you to recruit units into your army anywhere on the map but it's double the time so if a unit takes 2 turns locally it'll take 4 turns globally.

So in other words you don't have to necessarily spread your military might if needed you can keep it in one location so long as it works out and go from there. Plus it's best to make the rest of your provinces into strongholds and economic machines to pay for the upkeep as the economy isn't as strong compared to previous games so at times you may be able to field maybe 2-3 armies.

And the fact that minor settlements can be upgraded with walls and the defenses have been significantly improved to the point that attackers no matter what WILL take heavy casualties even if you have no army garrisoned there which allows you to focus on attacking.

Plus the introduction of quests allows you to level up your heroes and lords in neat ways too.

[surg3on]

Loved Attila for all its flaws so you wont like my opinion. Strategic layer is slightly more interesting than Attila but they have stripped a lot of layers. Now you only have to worry about Defence/ Military/Money. No food, sanitation but those don't make sense in a Warhammer setting and were never 'fun' in the Attila setting.

If you are happy waiting the game will probably be unrecognisable in a couple years just as most TWs have been drastically improved over time.

[Greasy Dave]

Thanks for the feedback. I actually took the plunge and went and bought it after reading lots of different posts.
I actually find myself quite liking alot of the things that you've all described in the above posts.
For me this return to the growth mechanic unlocking units is like a dream come true. Medieval 2, Shogun 2 all had it and it made building armies and reinforcing far more interesting than the tech unlock of R2 (imho). I find tech unlock allows you to spam the high tier barracks or what not anywhere you conquer...which meant I didn't think a second about the campaign map.
This mechanic, as some of you point out, brings back the need to plan and think things through - I don't mind it being reduced to Defense/ MIlitary / Money. There's enough to choose from there as it is.

I'm playing a VH dwarf campaign and my feelings swing between liking the game and frustration but for reasons other than the province and building upgrade system.

[Stangler]

Thanks for the feedback. I actually took the plunge and went and bought it after reading lots of different posts.
I actually find myself quite liking alot of the things that you've all described in the above posts.
For me this return to the growth mechanic unlocking units is like a dream come true. Medieval 2, Shogun 2 all had it and it made building armies and reinforcing far more interesting than the tech unlock of R2 (imho). I find tech unlock allows you to spam the high tier barracks or what not anywhere you conquer...which meant I didn't think a second about the campaign map.
This mechanic, as some of you point out, brings back the need to plan and think things through - I don't mind it being reduced to Defense/ MIlitary / Money. There's enough to choose from there as it is.

I'm playing a VH dwarf campaign and my feelings swing between liking the game and frustration but for reasons other than the province and building upgrade system.

The dwarf campaign can be frustrating if the orcs are able to get all up in your stuff. Plus the occasional WAAAGGHH to deal with. It is one of the factions where you really have to be careful about how you expand and how much money you dump into your poorly defended settlements and how active you are in diplomacy and confederation. The other races really have different types of worries and decisions to make early on. The empire's main enemy (Vamps) are way on the other side of the map. Instead they have other human factions and a couple of orc raiders to deal with. Plus they will be on the front lines of the chaos invasion.

[Greasy Dave]

The dwarf campaign can be frustrating if the orcs are able to get all up in your stuff. Plus the occasional WAAAGGHH to deal with. It is one of the factions where you really have to be careful about how you expand and how much money you dump into your poorly defended settlements and how active you are in diplomacy and confederation. The other races really have different types of worries and decisions to make early on. The empire's main enemy (Vamps) are way on the other side of the map. Instead they have other human factions and a couple of orc raiders to deal with. Plus they will be on the front lines of the chaos invasion.

Yeah, you're right. Yesterday I got over the hump. Turn 50 ish. Up till then I was playing wackamole and juggling. But by turn 50 the orcs had sorted themselves into 2 distinct factions -greenskins and top knotz. It made containment and ultimate domination much easier - they could no longer fight amongst themselves to build up the waagh trains- they had to fight me instead. I focused attacks on the greenskins and beat them down, giving up ground to the topknotz a I went. But After I'd killed Grimnoire I got the greenskins to agree to peace. Now I'm taking my sweet time taking down the topknotz and building up my empire, income and units. When the top knotz are history, the axes will be sharpened for the Greenskins. It's actually been very enjoyable. Even the frustrating wackamole. Winning is only as sweet as the sweat you spend earning it, I guess. I'm liking the game more and more.

INterestingly, regards Vamps -they've shown up on my NOrthern border - but I've got a greenskin buffer between me and them - so, so far, so good.

[Stangler]

Yeah, you're right. Yesterday I got over the hump. Turn 50 ish. Up till then I was playing wackamole and juggling. But by turn 50 the orcs had sorted themselves into 2 distinct factions -greenskins and top knotz. It made containment and ultimate domination much easier - they could no longer fight amongst themselves to build up the waagh trains- they had to fight me instead. I focused attacks on the greenskins and beat them down, giving up ground to the topknotz a I went. But After I'd killed Grimnoire I got the greenskins to agree to peace. Now I'm taking my sweet time taking down the topknotz and building up my empire, income and units. When the top knotz are history, the axes will be sharpened for the Greenskins. It's actually been very enjoyable. Even the frustrating wackamole. Winning is only as sweet as the sweat you spend earning it, I guess. I'm liking the game more and more.

INterestingly, regards Vamps -they've shown up on my NOrthern border - but I've got a greenskin buffer between me and them - so, so far, so good.

That is kind of how my campaign went too but I confederated with those northern dwarfs who were fighting the vamps. This helped me finish off the orcs to the north but I had no chance of taking on the vamps who were laying waste to a couple of regions. This created a long list of grudges for me to settle with them that is really messing with my public order. Not to mention the corruption effect.

I really felt like confederation creates some interesting choices as it allows some rapid expansion but it also creates some major headaches. The whole experience feels very dwarfish to me somehow.

[Greasy Dave]

That is kind of how my campaign went too but I confederated with those northern dwarfs who were fighting the vamps. This helped me finish off the orcs to the north but I had no chance of taking on the vamps who were laying waste to a couple of regions. This created a long list of grudges for me to settle with them that is really messing with my public order. Not to mention the corruption effect.

I really felt like confederation creates some interesting choices as it allows some rapid expansion but it also creates some major headaches. The whole experience feels very dwarfish to me somehow.

I purposefully haven't confederated for that exact reason - don't want to expose myself on too many fronts. I prefer to make alliances and occasionally get the allies to try to hit some of my enemies. I'm up to turn 100, I've got the whole of the South under my control and some NOrdic boatmen have just sailed up - can't remember their name. Anyway, they're going down. And then I'll finish the greenskins.

[Feasogach]

Useful thread, thanks.