Page 8 of 20 FirstFirst 123456789101112131415161718 ... LastLast
Results 141 to 160 of 400

Thread: Would you call TW Warhammer a step forward?

  1. #141
    Druout's Avatar Libertus
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    97

    Default Re: Would you call TW Warhammer a step forward?

    MTW2 has proper sieges rather than the trash in warhammer which is honestly the most horrible siege idea CA has ever had (I'd even take the crawling ETW sieges over it, at least that required some thought), it has individual unit formations, it has multiple (rather than 2) group formations, it has tiered fortresses. Hype train, new setting, and warhammer units make people either forget or overlook what has been removed that added more deliberate thought to the combat I guess.Well that and being the most simplistic in terms of tactical strategy which undoubted makes it more appealing to the casual player I suppose.

  2. #142

    Default Re: Would you call TW Warhammer a step forward?

    Quote Originally Posted by Smiling Hetairoi View Post
    Please stop worshipping Medieval 2. The game was good but it doesn't have anywhere near the amount of features that new games have. Medieval 2 at launch was a buggy mess that took a long time to fix compared to the near flawless release of Warhammer. CA has never been this close and open to the community yet the experts on TWC of course know better then everyone. People are praising this game everywhere except here, from 4chan to Reddit.
    The hoards are praising the game ( an advanced Mod more or less) all over the internet, it must be good! I accept your premise! I wouldn't dare show up on the mothership site, the varying opinions would make me dizzy at my computer.
    Last edited by stevehoos; May 28, 2016 at 06:22 PM.
    Shogun 2, no thanks I will stick with Kingdoms SS.

  3. #143

    Default Re: Would you call TW Warhammer a step forward?

    As for someone who has been playing since Rome and a fan of Warhammer fantasy battles I have to say that the game plays very nicely and its a lot of fun.gone are the days where peasants would enthusiastically spread fecal matter all over their skin until either disease comes or a build a fountain so they may clean themselves from time to time. Gone are the days where I have to devote one to two slots per region to the sole purpose of making food because simply buying food from the province next door would too much to handle. Gone are the days where I had to use my faction leaders magical powers to cast a spell of loyalty or death onto members of the ruling caste or my family (now i can use my magic for relatively more impressive things like fireballs and what not). Gone are the days of fighting endless stacks of levy spearmen now I have marginally more diversity when it come to the AI stacks i have to fight. Gone are the days where the campaign map took the spotlight with its tedious management of food/squalor/casting spells on my rivals/ sending agents to do bug all(they all did the same thing in rome2 how is that a thing) now the battle map which was truly the home of series takes its rightful place in center stage and I pity those who exclusively auto-resolve out of love of the second rate and juvenile level of "grand strategy" presented. It is a true miracle a total war game which features large scale battles as its main appeal to new players now focusing on these battles! I hope that CA in future titles learn that battles draw people in and to focus not on circumventing AI issue like they just have but on addressing them so that way a more enjoyable experience will follow. As for the stripped features if CA must put them back then please dont put them in as they were but remake them so that way they wont be such a tedious bore on the player base.

  4. #144

    Default Re: Would you call TW Warhammer a step forward?

    It's the waste of game resources that perplexes me. CA persists with nihilistic features that annoy and frustrate, rather than add to the fun.

    I've been following TW:W both here and on Reddit and see that a few of the same complaints about Rtw2 and Attila have returned. Namely, over-powered agent spam, and AI stacks being able to sack your settlements and then slip just out of reach of your defending stacks time and again because of forced march and the AI's ability to see magical red lines on the map that reveal the maximum range of your armies. Also, overpowered towers and shabby battle balancing.

    I get the impression that they're unpopular features that detract from the fun for most players, but I must be wrong because CA persists with them. Yes, they're moddable, but to me they're wasted game resources. For example, consider the time and effort put into the implementation of agents, which could have gone instead to something like deepening diplomacy, or campaign logistics such as supply. Instead of being nihilistic, unrealistic, ridiculous and infuriating poisoners (negative feature:not fun), agents could have been beneficial camp support and supply units of some sort (positive:fun).

    Instead of forced march and enemy stacks spending YEARS raiding on the borders or sitting in boats off the coast out of range (campaign stagnation: negative), how about accumulating integrity, exhaustion and attrition that force stacks either to attack a settlement or GTFO within a few turns (campaign action: positive)?

    It's disheartening, really.

    For all that, I've had a lot of fun with TW and it's almost the only game series I play. Trying out Pike and Shot:Campaigns and Scourge of War:Waterloo this weekend, though.

  5. #145

    Default Re: Would you call TW Warhammer a step forward?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tankbustaz View Post
    yeah. Us forum patricans who will shriek about how CA betrayed us or ate our babies because of arbitrary reasons.
    Lol how about forum plebeians? Did forum patricians count us in?

    Sent from my Smartfren Andromax AD688G using Tapatalk
    My name is John, Tribune of Legio Ripenses IX Tertiae Italica and loyal servant to the computer generated Emperor, Julianus Flavius Augustus "The Apostles". And I will have my vengeance again The Quadi tribes, barbarian scums who decimated half of my legio in Mediolanum City Siege almost a year ago and Gratianus Flavius "The Traitor", the former Caesar who convince a half of precious my legio to his petty scheme rebellion just 3 months ago in this save game or the next
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    IB:Restitutor Orbis Signature courtesy of Joar

  6. #146

    Default Re: Would you call TW Warhammer a step forward?

    Yes agents are annoying, so just get the no aggressive agents mod that someone made within 2 minutes of game release. Boom done.

  7. #147

    Default Re: Would you call TW Warhammer a step forward?

    Yes agents are annoying, so just get the no aggressive agents mod that someone made within 2 minutes of game release. Boom done.
    You're right, of course. However, when one pays full price for a game, one shouldn't have to slice parts of it off in order to enjoy it. CA persists in adding features that thousands of players remove almost as soon as they buy the game. This is a waste of the developers' time, and a waste of the players' money.

  8. #148

    Default Re: Would you call TW Warhammer a step forward?

    Wow, all this hate for the siege battles. In practice, they're a hell of a lot more fun than anything barring those of Shogun 2. The tower ranges actually make the decision to assault a real commitment - you either brought enough siege artillery to knock down the towers and then reduce the walls or you need to step it up and commit to the attack fully right from the start. Which with all units having ladders is actually possible and in turn forces the same reality on the defender as he wall climbing in S2 did: Walls alone will only slow down the attakcer, you need to actually defend them. Add in the larger wall sizes making it possible to shift reserves on the walls themselves even past other fights and a siege assault becomes a real contest of managing reserves and trying to isolate parts of the wall o try and get a breach. And, of course, the defender cna fall back o the VP and offer a las stand blocking hte roads even if the gate and walls fall.

    It overall forces a different mindset and approach than old sieges, but offers if at all more meaningful decisionmaking. What's the best option? Bring enough siege arty to knock the towers out? Brave all the towers to assault on a broad front to try and overload the defenders' ability to react? Concentrate on a narrow wall segment with multiple siege towers and ladders to try and create a direct breakthrough? Crash the gate with a Monster and some backup perhaps? And what about flying units? This also means that sieges work a hell of a lot different depending on who's the attacker and defender because the armies are just so different in what they can field.

  9. #149
    Semisalis
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario
    Posts
    426

    Default Re: Would you call TW Warhammer a step forward?

    Quote Originally Posted by Smiling Hetairoi View Post
    Please stop worshipping Medieval 2. The game was good but it doesn't have anywhere near the amount of features that new games have. Medieval 2 at launch was a buggy mess that took a long time to fix compared to the near flawless release of Warhammer. CA has never been this close and open to the community yet the experts on TWC of course know better then everyone. People are praising this game everywhere except here, from 4chan to Reddit.
    If Warhammer is a "flawless release" (it isn't), that's because they cut so much from the game that they had many times less work. It's an incomplete game, and I highly doubt they will change fundamental animations that are currently lacking. And Medieval 2 on release is irrelevant, that was a different era; the final version of the game had way more features and possibility than any of the games after.

  10. #150
    LestaT's Avatar Artifex
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Campus Martius
    Posts
    3,877

    Default Re: Would you call TW Warhammer a step forward?

    64 bit is not just a step but many leaps forward, but I see now why most people seems to desert TWC.

    Kindly sad.
    Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth. - Marcus Aurelius


  11. #151

    Default Re: Would you call TW Warhammer a step forward?

    Quote Originally Posted by LestaT View Post
    64 bit is not just a step but many leaps forward, but I see now why most people seems to desert TWC.

    Kindly sad.
    It's certainly is a good thing. But I would prefer a new engine build from scratch and with focus on optimization. This 64 bit support probably means there will be no new engine for a few more games.

  12. #152

    Default Re: Would you call TW Warhammer a step forward?

    I wouldn't call it a step forward but it's not as dramatic step back as some people claim it to be.

    Sieges - Yes, sieges are simplified now to a single wall (or two walls, in some cases) but what of it? In Rome 1 and Medieval 2 even the biggest units and the largest garrisons couldn't fill up the castle walls. Most fights took place mostly on a single wall and sometimes in the streets (in a very limited capacity). It means that 3/4 of the walls were left empty. Shogun 2 did it better by adding "magical ladders" (allowing units to climb without siege equipment) and using smaller forts. It felt like proper sieges, especially when attacked by superior forces. What Warhammer does is taking lessons from Rome 1 and Medieval 2 and simply reducing the amount of walls to make sieges more epic and costly. I am indifferent to this to be honest.

    What I miss:

    - The clarity of the UI in battles the Napoleon had (in my opinion). I never liked Rome 2/Attila style, even though I liked Attila more than Rome 2. It's too cluttered and doesn't not provide information quickly. Warhammer simply uses the same stuff as Rome 2 and Attila so it doesn't change anything here.

    - I am disappointed with lack of multiplayer campaign in style of Shogun 2. I see no reason why we had no real multiplayer campaign since then, especially when the map of the world is already provided. It could also serve as a gauge to see which factions are the most popular and/or win the most by reflecting that on the map. For me, it was really fun to conquer different provinces and level up your general. It's a real shame you can't customize your leader in multiplayer anymore. Yes, you have iconic figures from the Warhammer universe but for the multiplayer I expected some form of customization. The side result is that now you can't test units in custom battles. You need to throw in a lord, which is not helping in the test.

    - Not a fan of single-hero/special units. I would be fine with heroes acting within a squad and being less powerful entirely on their own. Perhaps it's because I always saw the series as tactical engagements of units and single units don't fit that picture. In addition it makes me dislike magic. Spamming a single target spell on an enemy commander until he does down rather than making a break through his lines or flanking him? It doesn't feel like Total War at this point. Magic should be a means to an end. Not the end itself.
    Last edited by Holy.Death; May 29, 2016 at 01:48 AM.

  13. #153
    Yerevan's Avatar Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,504

    Default Re: Would you call TW Warhammer a step forward?

    Quote Originally Posted by LestaT View Post
    64 bit is not just a step but many leaps forward, but I see now why most people seems to desert TWC.

    Kindly sad.
    I agree on the 64 bit part being a huge step forward (though one we've been asking for for some time already). But come on, you have a stoician quotation as signature, don't tell me the plain spokeness of TW critical minds hurts you so much. Personally since there's no demo, I'm happy that there's a place on the internet where I can check what I'm paying for. There are some people here who knows TW games wery well, who can recognise a flaw and who are not afraid to name it while everyone else is busy singing lala-praise. It's not so common : we live consual times, most people dare not to disagree with the mass or express anything else than satisfaction.

    We know most of the critics who give 8/10 to TWW are the one who gave 8/10 to TWR2. And we also know that TW games are asking for some time to be really explored. Real problems are never obvious in TW games. The first 10 hours of gameplay will always be exciting whatever the depth of the game. You have a new map, new models, new etc... It's enough to have fun for a few hours. The real problems, the one that will cripple your future campaigns you usually don't see during the first one.
    Last edited by Yerevan; May 29, 2016 at 04:58 AM.
    " Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room! "

  14. #154
    Druout's Avatar Libertus
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    97

    Default Re: Would you call TW Warhammer a step forward?

    Quote Originally Posted by MannybeingManny View Post
    TW games went to the dogs a long time ago.
    Question is, will there be another dev (indie maybe) who can bring us real alternatives (not for Warhammer, but for the Total War series in general)?

  15. #155

    Default Re: Would you call TW Warhammer a step forward?

    Quote Originally Posted by Johnadiw26 View Post
    May i suggest you read and research warhammer universe lore to better insight my friend, i think its not right to compare Third age mod (LOTR universe) with Total war : Warhammer (warhammer fantasy universe), because after all they are different universe, different story, different main rule. Personally to me its ridiculous if Emperor Karl Franz or Vampire Lord Count Von Castein have offspring in game but in lore they don't have offspring.

    Sent from my Smartfren Andromax AD688G using Tapatalk
    So there were no Vampire Houses in warhammer? I am fine with the Empire because they have the court system and that is how the Empire was ran in Lore. But the other races I feel should have clans and houses and family trees. Dwarves need Clans and families and so do Orcs.. Vampires can have houses too and just because they do not reproduce does not mean they cannot have a family tree. I dont care if it is the same family tree for 1000 years it is still a family tree.

    All I am saying is I am very unattached to every character in the game even moreso then I was in Rome 2. Maybe all the warhammer fans are loving this game and all the total war vets are pissed off I don't know but I feel like they went in just an odd direction.

    In Attila you were able to make sort of the start of feudalism. Assigning lords or governors to regions and those lords and governors can conspire and rebel or stay loyal and give your region benefits. You were able to select which family member from what sect of the family ruled where they got to rule. I feel like I should be able to see where my dwarf lords are coming from and who they are. I guess with renaming I can just rename them all and have clans and families of my own but then I am forcing it into the game. Always loved having a stupid rebellious cousin somewhere who was causing trouble and rebellions but I am stuck with him because its family. Or have to conspire against him with another family member (especially in attila). All of this does not exist in Warhammer.

    Also, do all the other features I mentioned that they left out have a warhammer lore specific reasoning behind them? Were there no sellswords or mercs in Warhammer? Were there no disease or famine? No political corruption? No food?

  16. #156

    Default Re: Would you call TW Warhammer a step forward?

    Quote Originally Posted by C.Maximus View Post
    So there were no Vampire Houses in warhammer? I am fine with the Empire because they have the court system and that is how the Empire was ran in Lore. But the other races I feel should have clans and houses and family trees. Dwarves need Clans and families and so do Orcs.. Vampires can have houses too and just because they do not reproduce does not mean they cannot have a family tree. I dont care if it is the same family tree for 1000 years it is still a family tree.

    All I am saying is I am very unattached to every character in the game even moreso then I was in Rome 2. Maybe all the warhammer fans are loving this game and all the total war vets are pissed off I don't know but I feel like they went in just an odd direction.

    In Attila you were able to make sort of the start of feudalism. Assigning lords or governors to regions and those lords and governors can conspire and rebel or stay loyal and give your region benefits. You were able to select which family member from what sect of the family ruled where they got to rule. I feel like I should be able to see where my dwarf lords are coming from and who they are. I guess with renaming I can just rename them all and have clans and families of my own but then I am forcing it into the game. Always loved having a stupid rebellious cousin somewhere who was causing trouble and rebellions but I am stuck with him because its family. Or have to conspire against him with another family member (especially in attila). All of this does not exist in Warhammer.

    Also, do all the other features I mentioned that they left out have a warhammer lore specific reasoning behind them? Were there no sellswords or mercs in Warhammer? Were there no disease or famine? No political corruption? No food?
    First sorry for my bad english, i will answer your question with my best, from what i was read in warhammer lore and correct me if i wrong, there is no vampire house,because von caisten starting to find potion or cure to resurrected his long dead lover, hmm i am understand about your complaint about lack of feature predecessor in game, and for dwarf in lore there is High King Council, something like you have 1 High King, and a lot Kings to govern, i think,i am biassed when answer your previous reply, and if you want mercenary go and get Tilian mercenary, if you want disease and corruption go to worship Papa Nurgle, damn you right mate,about lack of mercenary. May i suggest you to download and play M2TW mods : Call of Warhammer, hope that mod can fill your bill, and if you interested in warhammer lore, you can contact me,because i have a lot warhammer novel and background book in digital formats

    Sent from my Smartfren Andromax AD688G using Tapatalk
    My name is John, Tribune of Legio Ripenses IX Tertiae Italica and loyal servant to the computer generated Emperor, Julianus Flavius Augustus "The Apostles". And I will have my vengeance again The Quadi tribes, barbarian scums who decimated half of my legio in Mediolanum City Siege almost a year ago and Gratianus Flavius "The Traitor", the former Caesar who convince a half of precious my legio to his petty scheme rebellion just 3 months ago in this save game or the next
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    IB:Restitutor Orbis Signature courtesy of Joar

  17. #157
    Druout's Avatar Libertus
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    97

    Default Re: Would you call TW Warhammer a step forward?

    Quote Originally Posted by Magni View Post
    Wow, all this hate for the siege battles. In practice, they're a hell of a lot more fun than anything barring those of Shogun 2. The tower ranges actually make the decision to assault a real commitment - you either brought enough siege artillery to knock down the towers and then reduce the walls or you need to step it up and commit to the attack fully right from the start. Which with all units having ladders is actually possible and in turn forces the same reality on the defender as he wall climbing in S2 did: Walls alone will only slow down the attakcer, you need to actually defend them. Add in the larger wall sizes making it possible to shift reserves on the walls themselves even past other fights and a siege assault becomes a real contest of managing reserves and trying to isolate parts of the wall o try and get a breach. And, of course, the defender cna fall back o the VP and offer a las stand blocking hte roads even if the gate and walls fall.

    It overall forces a different mindset and approach than old sieges, but offers if at all more meaningful decisionmaking. What's the best option? Bring enough siege arty to knock the towers out? Brave all the towers to assault on a broad front to try and overload the defenders' ability to react? Concentrate on a narrow wall segment with multiple siege towers and ladders to try and create a direct breakthrough? Crash the gate with a Monster and some backup perhaps? And what about flying units? This also means that sieges work a hell of a lot different depending on who's the attacker and defender because the armies are just so different in what they can field.
    I disagree, it turns in to a much more arcadey game requiring less thoughtful effort than even Rome 1, where your tactics expanded beyond tower range and involved planning consideration in terms of manpower, reserves, equipment, and diversionary assaults.It's just straight up lazy on CA's part. This steam comment helps illustrate who CA was aiming for with the simplification in my opinion:

    "Kampfer91 has Total War™: WARHAMMERŽ
    It is better .

    I owned some Total war game but after playing a few days i uninstalled , why ? Because too many choices so it is very confusing unless you are Total war hardcore fan .
    But this total war warhammer , everything have been simplified , even a dork know how to keep his realm functioning . Now combat is the meat and butter which i like a lot ."

  18. #158

    Default Re: Would you call TW Warhammer a step forward?

    The only cool thing is the units factor, all rest is a huge step back.

    AI ridiculously overpowered because they can't make anything challenging tactical.
    Dumbed down unit abilities
    Tactics reduce only to send more enemies than the enemey let them clash and wait .
    Really this game seemed interesting , but the more I play at legendary level the more I see how many flaws that were tried to be covered simply by patches of overpowering AI .

    ------CONAN TRAILER--------
    RomeII Realistic Heights mod
    Arcani
    I S S G A R D
    Creator of Ran no Jidai mod
    Creator of Res Gestae
    Original Creator of severall add ons on RTW from grass to textures and Roman Legions
    Oblivion Modder- DUNE creator
    Fallout 3 Modder
    2005-2006 Best modder , skinner , modeler awards winner.
    actually modding skyrim [/SIZE]

  19. #159

    Default Re: Would you call TW Warhammer a step forward?

    Quote Originally Posted by clench View Post
    Paywall?

    All you have to do is buy the game and you get the content... such paywall!!
    Dude, they made Chaos week 1 DLC to prevent you from waiting to buy the game when it is cheaper. A lot of people were going to skip out but now they did that you rather pay the 60 up front than wait till its 40 and pay 15 for the pack later.
    [signature]

  20. #160
    Humble Warrior's Avatar Vicarius Provinciae
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Great Britain.
    Posts
    11,147

    Default Re: Would you call TW Warhammer a step forward?

    Quote Originally Posted by WAR monger View Post
    Dude, they made Chaos week 1 DLC to prevent you from waiting to buy the game when it is cheaper. A lot of people were going to skip out but now they did that you rather pay the 60 up front than wait till its 40 and pay 15 for the pack later.
    Yep!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •