Better with or without them?

[C.Maximus]

So.. I was playing attila the other night for and I realized there are a lot of features in past TW games that they took out of warhammer. My question is if it is for the best or not? Were these good game decisions? Let me make a list of things I thought of.. and be sure to add to this list if you want. Also, feel free to tell me how you feel about each feature if you would rather see it in Warhammer or not..

- Naval battles and ships.
-Religion or culture (and all the things involved... being able to change religions and in some cases your religion decides your unit choice)
-Seasons... (A change in seasons and campaign/battle effects reflecting such)
- Destructible environments (I once destroyed an entire lower tier roman village as the Huns. Setting fire to forests to flush troops out or burning down entire sections of cities were choice.. Now, I can only take down the towers or walls. )
- Squalor and disease- I liked having a chance of disease hitting your city and actually having counter measures to it.
- Family trees and family members - I liked continuing a family legacy and try to keep the crown in my family.
- Loyalty.- Along the lines of family members but you do not have to worry about any treacherous cousins or generals who are looking for power.
- Upgrades to weapon/armor. Building a blacksmith actually gave you a higher tier armor or weapon level. Not just unlocked units for you.

Anyways, let me know what you guys think. Do not get me wrong I love TWW ... but the more I play it the more I miss older features.

[♘Top Hat Zebra]

Some of these would be great. Naval battles, loyalty, upgrades, destruction, disease.

But others wouldn't really work. Seasons and family trees both would require there to be actual passage of time, but if that were the case, you'd have things like Karl Franz growing old and dying. Which, personally, Im completely behind that idea, but it seems to go against what CA is trying to portray here. Total War Warhammer isn't really about building an empire, it's about playing out "The Last Battle." It's a focused campaign, more so than a sandbox.

I'd prefer a sandbox, personally, but I understand what they are trying to do.

As for religion and culture, it's somewhat already there in the corruption mechanics, and otherwise it wouldn't make a whole lot of sense, I don't think. I mean, is a Dwarf agent going to spread Dwarf culture through the Empire? Is a Goblin Shaman going to bring the worship of Gork and Mork to Bretonnia? Im not sure how they would go about adding this without it just being somewhat silly.


As for features that I wish they would add back in, I would love to see trading lines back on the campaign map. I know it's such a small thing, but it's so, so incredibly satisfying to watch your economy in action, hundreds of little caravans and ships swarming over the map, bringing you money. I admit it, sometimes I start up the original Rome just so I can play as Syracuse and watch those little ships go from Carthage, to me, to Rome, and back.

An enhancement of trade in general would be amazing, but that's an entirely different subject.

I also really miss the way settlements were laid out from Empire to Shogun 2. It wasn't perfect, but it had a lot of potential to be great. Buildings outside of the main settlement that can be garrisoned or raided. With the food mechanic of Rome 2 and Attila, it would have been so fun to be able to take a small, fast army and destroy your enemy's farms, cutting off their food supply in daring winter raids, blockading ports without having to besiege entire cities, that sort of thing.

[Ichon]

A mix of the current province system with some outlaying buildings would be interesting and really give more of a feel to small Beastmen and Norscan raiding parties. As it stands for those raiding factions to be much of a threat they require full armies, many full armies- and constant 2 v 1 or 2 v 2 battles against virtual mirror armies (mostly Norscans- haven't seen enough Beastmen armies yet for comparison).

I would much prefer that the number and development of Norscan raiding parties depends on the development and number of regions they control but instead of sending full armies smaller stacks of 8-12 units spawn on boats and raid all the coast provinces. The faction leaders can raise full armies and have mechanic similar to Waaagh/Brayherd where if they win enough battles they can summon a horde that will actually take fortified settlements but more often they just require constant patrolling to protect the smaller ungarrisoned outlaying buildings on the campaign map. Especially with the +5% upkeep the choice to have 1 larger army that can easily defeat the raiding parties but not be everywhere at once vs 2 smaller armies that can probably win so long as they don't run into 2 or more raiding parties and cover more ground is what a strategy game should be about. If players get tired of the constant raids then they can raze or at least greatly weaken the number/strength of spawned Norscans by attacking Norsca.

[RGA]

What I miss from Attila is siege escalation. At the moment you besiege a city for a couple of turns and bam, half of the garrison force drops dead suddenly. On the other hand, even against a heavily depleted forces, attacking is still painful because of the towers which are intact throughout the siege. IMHO the mechanics in Attila makes more sense (or even better, the system in earlier Rome 2 where attacker suffers attritions as well. Don't know why they want to drop it).

[Psyalexander1664]

The main thing has got to be the sieges. I was looking forward to interesting siege environments like scaling the aqueducts of Middenheim and Talabheim being naturally defended by the rim of the great crater it is built in, etc ect.
The battle maps in Rome 2 and Attilla were just so great, particularly with cities which had ports etc and those which had canals or rivers running through them. And to take a Dwarfen Karak should really involve a series of battles above and below ground and several stacks of enemies etc. It would probably make Greenskin campaigns an unbearable grind but I feel like there must have been a better way to envisage these battles.

[SPARTAN VI]

Of that list, I can imagine disease/squalor mechanics coming to TW:WH when Skaven DLC/expansion arrives.

Other than that, TW:WH isn't necessarily better with or without the other items. Religion is abstracted suitably with the corruption mechanic. Layering seasonal weather campaign effects on top of that would have to be handled delicately (e.g. weather attrition AND corruption attrition would need to be balanced appropriately). IMO, the exclusion of a family tree probably makes more sense in TW:WH than it has in any other Total War game, but I do miss the idea of legacy and I'm disappointed by the invulnerable faction leaders. They've definitely lost the feeling of legacy.

[C.Maximus]

Of that list, I can imagine disease/squalor mechanics coming to TW:WH when Skaven DLC/expansion arrives.

Other than that, TW:WH isn't necessarily better with or without the other items. Religion is abstracted suitably with the corruption mechanic. Layering seasonal weather campaign effects on top of that would have to be handled delicately (e.g. weather attrition AND corruption attrition would need to be balanced appropriately). IMO, the exclusion of a family tree probably makes more sense in TW:WH than it has in any other Total War game, but I do miss the idea of legacy and I'm disappointed by the invulnerable faction leaders. They've definitely lost the feeling of legacy.

Yah everything has a 'fantasy rpg' feel and not a total war feel is what I get from playing it. Like you said, instead of just adding a disease mechanic they will add it in a fantasy evil rat man way. Just like religion is represented in corruption. The Legacy feeling is over for sure. Being an old Third Age Total War vet I was already ready for a fantasy total war. However that game was much more like total war with a fantasy conversion then this being, like I said, more of a fantasy rpg/strategy game. I was psyched to have large complicated Dwarf families with cousins and brothers who have loyalty issues and think they belong on the throne. Dwarf politics is a big part of their lore so I was sad to see virtually NO politics involved. Everyone tore rome 2 apart for having politics when it actually had a political system.. Warhammer they did not even try. I would love to have non aging vampire family members and see the whole Von Carstein family shown on a map. All with other family members scheming to replace Manfred with themselves and some who will support Manfred to the death. Vampires do die.. not of old age, but they do die. The orcs could even have other bosses challenge yours if they become too disloyal. And systems in place to depict all of this. And the Empire.. the Empire could have had so much politics involving the Holy Roman Empire like feudal system they are in. Like.. you are just "Non aggressive" with everyone? wtf? why not have count electors and all the jazz with some who are loyal some who are not and some who are just looking for a chance to break away and become self governed.

Anyways, your family tree legacy comment made me go on a rant. I realized that politics as well as family trees were taken from the game.

To update the list..
- Naval battles and ships.
-Religion or culture (and all the things involved... being able to change religions and in some cases your religion decides your unit choice)
-Seasons... (A change in seasons and campaign/battle effects reflecting such)
- Destructible environments (I once destroyed an entire lower tier roman village as the Huns. Setting fire to forests to flush troops out or burning down entire sections of cities were choice.. Now, I can only take down the towers or walls. )
- Squalor and disease- I liked having a chance of disease hitting your city and actually having counter measures to it.
- Family trees and family members - I liked continuing a family legacy and try to keep the crown in my family.
- Loyalty.- Along the lines of family members but you do not have to worry about any treacherous cousins or generals who are looking for power.
- Upgrades to weapon/armor. Building a blacksmith actually gave you a higher tier armor or weapon level. Not just unlocked units for you.
~new~
-Famine/food
-Politics
-Siege escalation

And I also think that TWW could benefit from a lot of these features. As chaos I would love to be able to burn the entire town down in the battle and instead of just clicking desolate. I did that a few battles as the Huns and to barbarians as the Romans and it was more then satisfying.

I already ranted how I thought the family tree/politics could benefit the game and add more to do in the campaign.

Squalor I am ok coming with the ratmen..

-Food and famine would be fun to be able to starve out your enemy like you could in Attila. Raiding multiple agricultural regions really helped me defend my Roman empire against attacking barbarians. The Undead would not need food so it could be a cool bonus for that.

-Yah Seasons perhaps could be left out however I think a balance of corruption and natural attrition can be found.

Siege Escalation is missed as well.. Just sieges in general. I feel like I am playing the actual table top game and taking over a board game wall over taking a city that people live and work in. I loved watching the farmers in Attila run from the fields into the city past my troops who were standing ready for the enemy.

I do not want to get into how much I miss navies.. I always played naval powers in games. And from what I see about warhammer navy.. It looks juicy.

Anyways.. I will stop giving my own opinions. I am obviously a bit bias and it is why I made this thread but I am more interested in what others think. I do agree with this being the the one that makes the most sense in taking out family trees however the lack of a legacy I think has a bigger impact on me. I always loved training up a prince and molding him into what it took to become a good king. One feature I miss from older total wars is multiple family members/generals in 1 army. Having the father show the son how to lead. But I wont go there..

[daelin4]

They take out some features so they can add them back in later titles to keep players returning.

Sounds Machiavellian sure, but it works.

[♘Top Hat Zebra]

If you added actual time changing, and the ability for major heroes to die, you would have the exact opposite thread coming up.

"I've never fought Karl Franz because he always dies clearing out rebels in the beginning of the game."

I agree, personally, I don't mind. I think "legendary lord" should be a dynamic thing. Instead of there being Legendary Lords and regular Lords, you would only have regular Lords until one gained enough levels to become legendary, opening up a new upgrade tree and increasing their combat potential and such.

This way, you'd start off with heroes who are already Legendary Lords, like Karl Franz, but then you could have new Legendary Lords spring up dynamically as the campaign goes on, so that amazing general who won six heroic victories in a row and conquered half the map won't always be worse than a similarly leveled Karl Franz who just went around grinding levels.

But it's not a very major complaint, really.

[C.Maximus]

If you added actual time changing, and the ability for major heroes to die, you would have the exact opposite thread coming up.

"I've never fought Karl Franz because he always dies clearing out rebels in the beginning of the game."

I agree, personally, I don't mind. I think "legendary lord" should be a dynamic thing. Instead of there being Legendary Lords and regular Lords, you would only have regular Lords until one gained enough levels to become legendary, opening up a new upgrade tree and increasing their combat potential and such.

This way, you'd start off with heroes who are already Legendary Lords, like Karl Franz, but then you could have new Legendary Lords spring up dynamically as the campaign goes on, so that amazing general who won six heroic victories in a row and conquered half the map won't always be worse than a similarly leveled Karl Franz who just went around grinding levels.

But it's not a very major complaint, really.

You can still have both. Mark Antony, Octavian, and Lepidus as well as Napoleon, Karl von Österreich-Teschen, Wellington,Blucher, Michail Kutuzov and Attila was basically immortal. And wasn't Hannibal and Caesar too in their mini campaigns? I think a good middle ground is not being able to die from warfare but old age. And have an extremely long time period so you can still have changing seasons and all that good stuff but in order for your LL to die of old age you would have to be into turn 600 or something. That way you can still have sons and other family members and politics but still have a LL. I really like the way they did Napoleon where it was 12 Tpy and every playable faction had a unique hero who was immortal for the campaign. This is not a new total war feature... just the fact they are 1 character instead of a dude within a bodyguard makes them more 'unique'

[M2TWRocks]

They take out some features so they can add them back in later titles to keep players returning.

Sounds Machiavellian sure, but it works.

Machiavellian - no. Free market economics - yes.

[Arimahn]

I don't think we'll ever see naval battles again. They simply didn't work and weren't very fun.

[Gwayn]

- Naval battles rarely every worked, so I'd prefer to be rid of them.
- Religion - we already got corruption in the game thatpartly does this job. Not sure how this would fit into the WH-universe, though. Maybe add
some special buildings and units for Chaos depending on the deity? Might be nice but I know too little of the WH-lore for that.
- Squalor, disease and family politics: I feel these were what made Attila a boring city-management-sim with some small bits of warfare. On higher
difficulties, you had to build most provinces with the exact same buildings and it was more of a numbers game than any real intellectual challenge.
Basically something to waste your time. Same for family politics which I can't remember every having issues with but feeling a lot of annoyance for
having to do the exact thing every turn (keep that balance bar in the middle"). I see so many people complain about agents in TW but with those,
you can actually achieve important and useful things, quite unlike most of your family politics actions which I felt were mainly there to maintain the
status quo (apart from the rare useful diplomatic marriage). Meanwhile, your agent play/counterplay has way more merit, stopping enemy armies,
killing/buffing/debuffing on the battlefield, allowing you to capture cities without siege equipment etc.

[M2TWRocks]

I don't think we'll ever see naval battles again. They simply didn't work and weren't very fun.

I would love to see them implemented correctly. But, as you said, they never were. It looked like you would think it should. There was water, there were ships, troops, etc. But then you clicked "start battle" and it turned to . Controlling the ships wasn't fun and it almost always just ended up being a cluster of ships all mashed together, some sinking, some on fire, some retreating. All this happening before you had any chance to enjoy what was going on to begin with. But possibly worse than that, naval battles rarely had any real impact on the campaign.

Fans had been clamoring for the naval combat for years before Empire. I was among them. But like you said, it never really took off. Most of the time, I just ignored the naval aspect of the game. Navies were expensive, took crazy casualties, and took forever to replenish for some reason. (Even when in a port that produces the units.) I would be happy with navies being abstracted in some way. Maybe just a percentage of your income could be used to dedicate to an abstracted mechanic.

[daelin4]

I don't think we'll ever see naval battles again. They simply didn't work and weren't very fun.

I dunno FotS naval battles were fun. Repeititve sure, but fun still. Just needed more stuff to do other than start battle approach ships turn for broadside and click End Battle after the fireworks.

[econ21]

I liked naval battles in Empire: at least aesthetically, they were beautiful and impressive. I'm less keen on the pre-gun powder versions - ramming and boarding - perhaps because they require a little too much micro management with 20 ships. With cannon, you can just control a few battle lines. But it is very hard to control a dozen attempted boarding actions in real time. I'd like to see naval battles return in Warhammer, ideally with the elves, but perhaps to avoid the micro-management issue, they should be scaled down - fewer ships, so a squadron focus (say max. 6, even that's a lot). I don't know if a "bullet time" or VATS type feature would be possible, to allow better micro-management of critical periods.

The other missing features were great in other games, but I don't miss them in Empire. I really enjoyed micro-managing the WRE in Attila, dealing with squalor, food, family trees etc. But none of that feels so relevant or meaningful in Warhammer. There's still a very tight economic aspect to the campaign (at least for my builder play style), but more importantly the diplomacy and grand strategy elements are quite rich in Attila. When you are worrying about a neighbour expanding too fast or incoming Chaos invasions, I'm quite grateful I can press end turn quickly. As it is, checking diplomacy every turn and managing a dozen agents is enough busy work for me.