Would you call TW Warhammer a step forward?

[Incontinenta Buttox]

You can say "moshpit" as many times as you like. It doesn't make it a thing.

I think it would be useful for some of us to try and remember that this is a WARHAMMER game, and treat it as such. In my opinion CA have made a very good WARHAMMER game, which has captured the essence of the WARHAMMER fatasy world and the WARHAMMER tabletop game. This was never supposed to be a version of Hearts of Iron, or EU4 with pretty graphics, which seems to be what some of you were expecting.

[Bulk]

You can say "moshpit" as many times as you like. It doesn't make it a thing.

I think it would be useful for some of us to try and remember that this is a WARHAMMER game, and treat it as such. In my opinion CA have made a very good WARHAMMER game, which has captured the essence of the WARHAMMER fatasy world and the WARHAMMER tabletop game. This was never supposed to be a version of Hearts of Iron, or EU4 with pretty graphics, which seems to be what some of you were expecting.

I think this is a Total War game first and foremost. It is a part of the series. You can't just cut it out and pretend like previous games didn't happen.

[Karnil Vark Khaitan]

CA, do not shy away from sophistication or "realism" in your games, even if they happen to be fantasy. Gamers aren't stupid. Most of us appreciate "hardcore" elements, which if done right, add to complexity and immersion.

TLDR;
But Carl Jung is right at the most I read, just because it is a fantasy game should there still be realism in it.
As in: a dragon acts like a fantasy dragon, while a Empire State trooper should act like a real soldier, but still within the fantasy world.
As for the reloading (I really don't care about it), but the handguns aren't magical reloaded, it is still just a handgun.
As for the formations, I honestly miss them, but in truth the table top didn't have them (which could have fixed table top a lot if yar ask me which you didn't).
So I get why CA didn't wanted to use them, but still how will I be able to make a lance formation for the brets???

I think this is a Total War game first and foremost. It is a part of the series. You can't just cut it out and pretend like previous games didn't happen.

well then what is missing?

[A Barbarian]

I think this is a Total War game first and foremost.

Indeed, but at the core a Total War game is defined by 'turn based campaign' mode where u manage your economy, diplomacy and armies and 'realtime battles' with the armies from the campaign map. Everything else, e.g. the setting (traditionally historical), emphasis on campaign mode or realtime battles, extent of diplomacy/economical management, ... varies from title to title. TW-Warhammer puts more emphasis on the battles than the average TW-game in the series and adds some new stuff like magic, heroes with RPG elements, flying units. These decisions all make sense for the setting and I think are pretty well implemented. I can understand that u might not like that emphasis but that doesn't make TW-Warhammer a bad Total War' game.

[Yerevan]

So I get why CA didn't wanted to use them, but still how will I be able to make a lance formation for the brets???

You will. I'm sure I've read that Bretonian knights will have wedge formation.

[Karnil Vark Khaitan]

You will. I'm sure I've read that Bretonian knights will have wedge formation.

They better have! or even the brets peasants will riot!

And fun fact: total warhammer seems to be the most cleaned out total war game, as there are barely any left over code from the former games.
I would have loved to add pikemen if they had let it stay in the engines DB, the same for all the formations.

[Bulk]

Indeed, but at the core a Total War game is defined by 'turn based campaign' mode where u manage your economy, diplomacy and armies and 'realtime battles' with the armies from the campaign map. Everything else, e.g. the setting (traditionally historical), emphasis on campaign mode or realtime battles, extent of diplomacy/economical management, ... varies from title to title. TW-Warhammer puts more emphasis on the battles than the average TW-game in the series and adds some new stuff like magic, heroes with RPG elements, flying units. These decisions all make sense for the setting and I think are pretty well implemented. I can understand that u might not like that emphasis but that doesn't make TW-Warhammer a bad Total War' game.

Look at the thread title dude. It's not about convincing someone the game is bad. It's about TW series not moving forward. You can't argue with that because it's true.

[A Barbarian]

You can't argue with that because it's true.

Now u have me convinced, lol.

More on topic, TW-Warhammer is moving the series forwards because:
- CA cleaned up a lot of stuff which just didn't work very well (e.g. sea battles, river crossing battles, ...) or wasn't implemented in the necessary extent (e.g. variety of small town layouts in Attila)
- it delivers the most polished TW experience out of the box yet: Everything works well or very well. E.g. in 40 hours of gameplay I haven't found a single ridiculous AI behaviour or broken mechanic. And I also haven't experienced any crash or very bad performance issue.

In short, TW-Warhammer is even a very good base to extend on for historical games (e.g. add family tree again).

[The Despondent Mind]

Now u have me convinced, lol.

More on topic, TW-Warhammer is moving the series forwards because:
- CA cleaned up a lot of stuff which just didn't work very well (e.g. sea battles, river crossing battles, ...) or wasn't implemented in the necessary extent (e.g. variety of small town layouts in Attila)
- it delivers the most polished TW experience out of the box yet: Everything works well or very well. E.g. in 40 hours of gameplay I haven't found a single ridiculous AI behaviour or broken mechanic. And I also haven't experienced any crash or very bad performance issue.

In short, TW-Warhammer is even a very good base to extend on for historical games (e.g. add family tree again).

CA just showed how lazy or pressured they are, they aren't even attempting to fix or improve on some issues, they are just removing content so they don't have to worry about it or being criticized.

[clench]

Moguls, Huns... a bit of a mix on my part.. But that does not change the facts.
A transport and a ship are two different things? A ship is a sea going vessel, a transport is a sea going vessel. But it's clear you don't understand the reason why I would even bring that up.

So having 6 building slots in major settlements produces more variation than 20 or 30 in Medieval 2? That's nonsensical rubbish; I have my own modded version which has unique buildings for all of England, I made them myself. That alone is 30X more variation than in Attila.

Being able to build everything everywhere is not more complicated than limiting what you can build. One requires forethought and planning, the other doesn't. Even in the most complicated RTW/M2TW mods you end up with dozens of identical settlements.

There can be tons of custom buildings and modifiers on them, you just have to specialize your settlements accordingly instead of building the same settlement over and over and over and over and over.

[Bust Nak]

A few points:

Combat is shallow and unrewarding, even though it works well compared with Rome II at launch, tactical diversity is still embedded in hot button skills and a "rock paper scissors" balance system.

Rock paper scissors balance is important sure, but don't see how you can claim tactical diversity is embedded in just rock paper scissors and hot button skills that when positioning is still of prime importance when it comes to winning fights. The hot button skills just add a layer on top.

Regiments of soldiers are essentially blobs of numerical values, a system very similar to Dawn of War, but a step away from the randomly factored, individualized combat model of previous TW titles.

individualized combat is still in Warhammer.

The most common available tactic is outflanking and charging from the back which the AI exploits to the point of frustrating annoyance (while its general battle performance has hardly progressed since Shogun 2, in fact I'd still rate ReallybadAI from Med II as being a step above any CAI).

But isn't out flanking and charging from the back is the most important aspect of battle performance? I don't see how saying the AI outflanks and charges from the back consistently, isn't saying it's a clear progression in general battle performance.

I mean in the universe of Warhammer, regiments of soldiers are just blobs sharing a hit point pool... Forest concealment, terrain, light vs. heavy equipment, morale effects don't matter... essentially removed or dumbed down into oblivion.

You could argue how large an impact these factors have to the final result of a battle, but units don't share a health pool, each soldier has their own health in Warhammer. Forest concealment, terrain effects, missile/solid collision, directional armor, fatigue affecting offensive and defensive capacity and morale effects are still in Warhammer.

[A Barbarian]

CA just showed how lazy or pressured they are, they aren't even attempting to fix or improve on some issues, they are just removing content so they don't have to worry about it or being criticized.

Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.

[Viva Espana!]

\

I'll do it for you.

No. Lack of region-trading.

I don't know what you mean by this.

Region trading. Offering/Demanding Regions in Diplomacy.

[clench]

Region trading. Offering/Demanding Regions in Diplomacy.

Would be nice to see, but not a necessary feature. Game is fine without it.

You can confederate with cultures that are the same as your faction which serves a similar function.

This is both Warhammer and Total War, there should be no region trading with your enemies. You kill them or they kill you.

Orcs are not going to accept a peace deal with dwarves where they get or give up regions, neither are the undead hordes or chaos legions. It's all or nothing with these factions.

[Yerevan]

They better have! or even the brets peasants will riot!

And fun fact: total warhammer seems to be the most cleaned out total war game, as there are barely any left over code from the former games.
I would have loved to add pikemen if they had let it stay in the engines DB, the same for all the formations.

I'm not surprised ; the finishing touch in terms of code and optimisation seems to be unprecedented in the warscape era.

[Stangler]

After reading a lot of the comments it seems that a lot of the people who are complaining just wanted the game to be another iteration of the same basic game we have seen a bunch of times already. The criteria for answering the question seems to be that the game has to just be like the other games with some added layer or some problems fixed. TWW is clearly not that and doesn't even pretend to be but I have a really hard time saying that this is the only way to define the series as moving forward.

The series has gotten somewhat stale and newer versions of the game have a hard time even living up to previous versions even as they add "complexity" or other changes that are meant to add to the experience. R2 versus the original for example. So instead this game broadens the scope of the type of games in the TW series of games. By adding fantasy as a setting they significantly add to what they can do in their games. This is not only good for the fantasy setting games but other games that can now cater more to a certain type of experience instead of simply duplicating the same thing over and over.

I see this game as a huge step forward in terms of the entire TW series. The game itself is a much more focused experience for the player which fits the Warhammer IP really well. Instead the game actually allows you to create interesting armies and develop your hero in a relatively meaningful way. There are way more fun and interesting decisions to be made when building your armies for any of the races in warhammer than any other previous TW game IMO.

I would imagine that if you are simply auto resolving battles this game would be terrible for you. This game really doesn't cater to that mindset. Not because it doesn't work but because it sucks the life out of the game. The life of this game is in the dwarves lobbing explosive grenades into mobs of orcs or using Karl Fraz to fly around the map and charge into key enemy positions or having your zombie horde tie up the enemy while the real army comes in as a second wave of death.

Warhammer is a huge leap forward IMO because it adds fun back to the series that has forgotten how to make a fun game IMO.
Microprose

[Derpy Hooves]

No. Lack of region-trading. Mandatory five-turn tutorials for Empire/Dwarfs every single new campaign. Weak cavalry charges (Reiksguard having trouble killing many Crossbowmen on the charge...). No reloading animations for gunpowder weapons (both hand-held and artillery). Lack of ammo variety (cannons can't use grapeshot or singleshot).

Worst of all, the same city/town/province construction system which limits your development to a ridiculous degree.

Lack of region trading is a problem that I've hated since Shogun II dropped it
Tutorials aren't mandatory, you just have to unclick a checkbox (which for some reason is not titled tutorial)
Cavalry charges are weak? I've played with Reiksguard slamming through an entire unit of skellies, if that's weak, then I don't know what's powerful
Lack of reloading animations is a shame
Don't care about ammo variety
Because the game is about war, only war. Not economic development

[Osbot]

It's all a moshpit with a few heroes in the middle of it any way you cut it with this game. Tactics involve more than just the large muscle movements; "Tactics is the art and science of employing all available means to win battles and engagements. Specifically, it comprises the actions taken by a commander to arrange units and activities in relation to each other and the enemy." Additionally "Tactics is the employment of units in combat. It includes the ordered arrangement and maneuver of units in relation to each other, the terrain and the enemy to translate potential combat power into victorious battles and engagements" Tactics are supported by Techniques and Procedures (TTPs), Tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTP) provide the tactician with a set of tools to use in developing the solution to a tactical problem."

The solution to any specific problem is a unique combination of these TTP or the creation of new ones based on a critical evaluation of the situation. The tactician determines his solution by a thorough mastery of doctrine and existing TTP, tempered and honed by experience gained through training and operations. He uses his creativity to develop solutions for which the enemy is neither prepared, nor able to cope.....The tactician invokes the art of tactics to solve tactical problems within his commander’s intent by choosing from interrelated options, including—

-Types and forms of operations, forms of maneuver, and tactical mission
tasks. (A tactical mission task is the specific activity performed by a unit while executing a form of tactical operation or form of maneuver)
-Task organization of available forces, to include allocating scarce resources.
- Arrangement and choice of control measures.
-Tempo of the operation.
- Risks the commander is willing to take.
These options represent a starting point for the tactician to create a unique solution to a specific tactical problem.(FM 3-90).

The limitations in depth as regards to tactics and supporting techniques and procedures (unit formation elimination, group limitation to melee front/missile front) reduce the overall tactical depth of the game-play compared to previous iterations in the series. And with heroes in the mix the whole thing is pretty much a mosh pit requiring little thought. It's not about slow, it's about non-existent supporting techniques and procedures that are an inseparable part of anything that can be considered tactics.

And as to forms of maneuver, on the whole these have seemed subpar in Warhammer compared to earlier iterations; (other than frontal attack and penetration with a bunch of heroes I suppose). If anything the game does not allow for a proper turning movement (form of maneuver) from what I have seen, it just degenerates into a moshpit. The combat feels more akin to something like BFME than a TW game in terms of tactical depth.

My original post, called you out for not knowing what tactics were. I then explained what tactics work. I thought that the post was too harsh so I cut the bulk of out it. Looks like I was correct. You don't know what tactics are. You have to quote army field manuals at me to convey your understanding of tactics. It's ok, most people struggle with understanding what tactics actually are. The fact you can't just tell me yourself tells me everything I need to know.

Here are what tactics are, taking everything your army manual says, and boiled down into one sentence.

Tactics are anything you do to achieve your objective.

So please stop with your droll trolling. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about, if you did, you could summarize the entire block of text you quoted at me into a single sentence the way I just did.

[Osbot]

The initial sales of Rome II shows that historical themes can have a large audience. Said that, Attila wasn't a very attractive theme and was also presented in a somewhat drab fashion down to the lack of diversity of everything (factions, units, city layouts, ...) and even the drab color palette.

After TW-Warhammer, I would actually like to have a new Empire with an emphasis on the diversity of factions (Europeans, native Americans, Africans, India, ...)

I can get behind this. Empire for me is a love-hate relationship. I love it, because it is a unique game(Nappy included) in the TW franchise. The battles for that era are perfectly suited to TW games. I hate it, because it is the last of the games that had absolutely horrible, nonsensical, barely functioning campaign AI. In the tradition of Rome 1 and Medieval 2, the CAI of Empire is so bad that I have to have a very serious hankering for Empire to consider playing it, and I think it might be my favorite game in the series until Warhammer.

The more recent innovations to CAI, from Shogun 2 onwards, would be greatly received in an new Empire game. On the other hand, Empire is in my estimation benefit enormously from the Empire/Shogun 2 style campaign map, with tons of strategic points on the map, representing provincial upgrades and new villages and what not. I feel like a new Empire would probably get the province treatment, which I think is probably not as good as the Empire/Shogun 2 system.

[Humble Warrior]

You can say "moshpit" as many times as you like. It doesn't make it a thing.

I think it would be useful for some of us to try and remember that this is a WARHAMMER game, and treat it as such. In my opinion CA have made a very good WARHAMMER game, which has captured the essence of the WARHAMMER fatasy world and the WARHAMMER tabletop game. This was never supposed to be a version of Hearts of Iron, or EU4 with pretty graphics, which seems to be what some of you were expecting.

So a loong way around of saying it`s a silly fantasy not based on reality; in essence a `wizard did it`.

I think that`s why CA went Warhammer TW- So they could now run with the fantasy excuse for everything, even bugs and bad mechanics. No more people using reality on them as a yardstick. No more trying to explain away stupid things with lies. Genius!