What could get Warhammer a 10/10 Score !

[PROMETHEUS ts]

Warhammer Analysis


Actual Score : 7.5


At the moment Warhammer is a very dumbed down version of what should be a TW game, the last games produced are really bad , historically , graphically but most of all on gameplay aspect!

Shogun II instead is the best achievement so far and I have no clue why CA decided to remove all the good gameplay mechanics they had introduced in that game for making a dumbed down version.
I especially praise the Multiplayer roleplay career mode of STW II .

In comparison Warhammer MP is bland , simplicistic and at traits flat !


Yet the game is cool for the look and the fun watching strange and unconventional units clash on each other.
There are some flaws in units though.
Some Units are looking good, some great and some are terrible, there is a little incoherence in graphic constistence, looks like different artists worked on different units and were not coordinated well to preserve a good quality level between them.
So different styles that do not preserve the coherence in the graphics uniformity.
The best looking units end up beeing the leaders, while the cannonfodder units, wich are the ones you see the most are instead less flashed out and detailed.

There are a lot of graphical glithces and imprecisions also on the battlemaps like floating stones, unintruded mesh cliffs, poor pathways and rather boring landscape with few items or buildings or other interest points that instead other games had like Shogun for example.

Do not get me wrong though, I am surely enjoying the game, but just because its a Warhammer setting with strange units, if this game was done with the same care it was done Shogun II, especially in MP and the gameplay of battles was not dumbed down removing formation buttons and types, the unit features like for one open or closed formation , a shield formation , pike formations and so on , stuff that would make the units more interesting to use and not just some stuff to pick and throw into battle ... this would have been a masterpiece, unfortunately the gameplay decisions taken at high level proved to be wrong and do not rise much entusiasm in playing battles or online matches because of the flattness of the commands and the few options offered compared to past titles so the fun relies only into watching monsters and weird units fight.
The positive aspects of the game are instead the campaign quest system, the variety of factions , events ingame and other things that keep things different and fresh just changing faction ...
I am really disappointed by the dumbed down features of the combat system but the campaign is better than others so far.

Here is my Rate list for the games released so far:
Shogun II has actually 9/10 , but it could be better still .


In comparison

Shogun I 10/10 ( it was the first )
Medieval 9/10
Rome I 9/10 ( it was the beginning of a new age )
Medieval II 7/10
Empire 6/10 ( Introduced sea battles )
Napoleon 5/10
Rome II has 2/10 ( really bad historical design , no proper testudo formation, bad AI , unfullfilled promises , no city walls and so on)
Attila 4/10 ( new horde system is good but the rest is similar to Rome II )

So warhammer gets a 7.5/10[/QUOTE]

I add a 1/2 point to the original 7 and Warhammer gets an 7.5 because of the variety of the campaign.

But Remember that the features of the battles is the main feature of Total war and dumbing down is the worst decision ever taken .
So I suggest CA to reimplement all those stripped features that were present in Shogun II.

So far Shogun II is above because it has an Unique and Awesome Multiplayer career system that kept people busy for ages and was really enjoyable
Plus it has a very good feature system in the battle modes.
Sure it lacks the diversity in the campaign aspect but thats the nature of playing in a setting where all factions are the same, its more balanced and more like a chess game its not a good or bad feature.


Warhammer could get a 10/10 if :


1 Reimplement the features stripped from the battle modes that were present in earlier titles
2 Implement the Multiplayer game system with career, formations of army and a whole roleplay thing like it was in Shogun II
3 make better graphics and more interesting landscapes that are somewhat subpar if compared to previous titles ( a good example here are Arena maps)
4 Add back the real castle system with proper sieges in battle modes and not just plain flat maps or one single side castle wall.
5 Better diplomacy with more options , like exchange territory , lend units, offer prisoners as ransom and so on.
6 Eventually Sea battles.



If you do that Warhammer will rise to the top ten with a 10/10 ....

Since it has many DLCs planned I hope CA will focus on them adding those gameplay features that are really needed and will add a lot to the game.

Finally as bonus if you create a tool to import export models and allow to make custom battlemaps to be used ingame it will get 10/10 with laude !

[Chlodwig I.]

1. ?
2. Not intresting at all
3. A matter of Taste I like the landscape more than in previous titles. (especially compared with the landscape in your 10/10 Shogun I)
4. No way, City Sieges are now mutch better than in previous titles (e.g. Empire, Rome, etc. except Shogun 2, I liked the siege of Japanes Casles)
5. I don't need unrealistic adiplomacy options like exchanging territory, lend units... especially it doesn't make sense in a Warhammer setting (by the way selling Prisoners is already included at end of the battle
6. Why Sea Battles when there is almost no water on the Warhammer Old World Map

I hope CA doesn't waste time on this.

[PROMETHEUS ts]

1. ?

Things like loose formation , pike formations and so on ....

2. Not intresting at all

Just for you , because a lot of people are interested in multiplayer battles and have a great time playing Shogun II career , its actually very interesting and fun and its a plus feature that is not detracting from other things so you can as well like it but you can't say you dislike since it doesn't detracts anything from your gameplay.

3. A matter of Taste I like the landscape more than in previous titles. (especially compared with the landscape in your 10/10 Shogun I)

So you like only flat maps ? Yeh its your taste only , all the rest of people like more varied and interesting maps.
As for Shoggun I Shogun I gets 10 because it was the first of its kind, it needs to be seen in the context and the time it was released , it was a revolutionary game and sure had some flaws, but for the time it couln't compare to anything else so it gets 10 .

4. No way, City Sieges are now mutch better than in previous titles (e.g. Empire, Rome, etc. except Shogun 2, I liked the siege of Japanes Casles)

You are kidding here right? There are no sieges in gameplay apart only for the main ones and those are dumbed down to a frontal siege, with even very bad pathway blocks, the graphics are also underlevel compared to previous titles, and if you check the castles of Shogun II those are much better and fun to play . The sieges of Warhammer are almoust useless and non exhistant , plus the secondary cities, do not even have buildings, so sorry but here your comment is out of place.

5. I don't need unrealistic a diplomacy options like exchanging territory, lend units... especially it doesn't make sense in a Warhammer setting (by the way selling Prisoners is already included at end of the battle

You are wrong, those options as well as many others, are realistic, and not unrealistic, also are a very demanded feature also on official forums and other people want more options as well, limiting only to mostly make battle, commerce or peace is actually a totally dumbing of the diplomacy and this IS unrealistic!

6. Why Sea Battles when there is almost no water on the Warhammer Old World Map

Because it adds a new layer of gameplay and sea battles are already present in game just autoresolved.

I hope CA doesn't waste time on this.

This comment is offensive, and honestly ridiculous. The forums are for giving feedback , and while mine is a propositive feedback ,yours is simply a negative and dumbing down game comment, It makes think you wish for the failure of the total war franchise turning it into one of the many simplicistic RTS titles out there ...

So your comments Does not have any value and shouldn't be even considered simply because is the typical comment of who wants another game than a total war one and so hopes and asks for constant simplifications and dumbing down reducing the game to the style of RTS ala Age of Empires, ... perhaps that game is better suited for you since the easyness and you just need to mass units and throw them one against each other ...

[Derpy Hooves]

Attila 4/10

Opinion discarded

[Påsan]

I agree on the multiplayer. Wathammer have a lot of potential in multi above the regular pitched battles. Especially free for all should be a thing.

[Baldwin of Jerusalem]

3 make better graphics and more interesting landscapes that are somewhat subpar if compared to previous titles ( a good example here are Arena maps

I don't understand this comment. Most of the maps in Warhammer seem to be full of undulating landscapes with rises and dips to take advantage of.

[Chlodwig I.]

Things like loose formation , pike formations and so on ....

Okay, has been already removed in... Attila I think.

Just for you , because a lot of people are interested in multiplayer battles....

Yes for me,
I can't talk for others
and the same for you,
you can only speak for yourself, that you think it is intresting and fun.
There are other people who think like you
there are other people that think like me, who and are not intrested or don't have fun playing multiplayer.

And now?

but you can't say you dislike

I dislike it.

You see, I can say I dislike it.

it doesn't detracts anything from your gameplay

It depends,
because the Team that is programming the Mulitplayer feature needs to be paid,
if that removes company resources from other areas/Teams maybe things I'm intrested in can't be implemented
so it would/could have a negative impact on me.

So you like only flat maps ? Yeh its your taste only , all the rest of people like more varied and interesting maps.
As for Shoggun I Shogun I gets 10 because it was the first of its kind, it needs to be seen in the context and the time it was released , it was a revolutionary game and sure had some flaws, but for the time it couln't compare to anything else so it gets 10.

Can you have a discussion without insulting other people?
I have played battles on maps with hills, forests, swamps etc.
so for my taste the variety is similar to previous TW titles.

You are kidding here right? There are no sieges in gameplay apart only for the main ones and those are dumbed down to a frontal siege, with even very bad pathway blocks, the graphics are also underlevel compared to previous titles, and if you check the castles of Shogun II those are much better and fun to play . The sieges of Warhammer are almoust useless and non exhistant , plus the secondary cities, do not even have buildings, so sorry but here your comment is out of place.

Again your opinion.
I got antoher,
I like the graphics because for me it fits perfect to the WH Universe.

ShougunII sieges was fun
but Shogun needs to be Compared to Empire or Napoleon where you only sieged Forts and not Cities
In WH you are sieging Cities so you need to campare it to Rome, Rome 2, Attila, Medieval
and best sieges had been in Attial, WH is in my opinion second, worst and most redicolous sieges had Rome 1

You are wrong,

No you are wrong.

And now?

those options as well as many others, are realistic, and not unrealistic, also are a very demanded feature also on official forums and other people want more options as well, limiting only to mostly make battle, commerce or peace is actually a totally dumbing of the diplomacy...

Why should the population of an Empire region accept that they are exchanged for another region and will become part of the Undead Empire...sure realy realisitc.
Or Dwarfs will start to trade and exchange prisoners and technology with the orks, fits perfect into the WH Universe...
well No it doesn't.

...and this IS unrealistic!

No, show me cases in History where Kingdoms with huge culturel or religous diffrences exchanged territories (not colonies) and it worked without causing wars or civil wars.

Because it adds a new layer of gameplay and sea battles are already present in game just autoresolved.

No seabattles are not in the game, or are seamaps, ships etc. available in the game for the realtime battles?

But if they would already be included
whats the reason for building a Navy on the Old World Map?
How often would seabattles happen?
You can cross most sea areas in one or two turns, it is realy bad planning if a enemy Navy would be close enough to intercept your transport ships.
orks and dwarfs can use to underground tunnels to cross the water areas between the southern wastes and the Bordprince Regions in one move.

I'm sure Sea Battles will be added in the 2nd game when Atlantis err Uluthan Map (High Elf Home Island) will be included and I'm looking forward for it having seabattles with darkelves against High elves.
For the Old World Map of WH, seabattles are not intresting because there is almost no sea you need to cross.

This comment is offensive, and honestly ridiculous. The forums are for giving feedback , and while mine is a propositive feedback ,yours is simply a negative and dumbing down game comment, It makes think you wish for the failure of the total war franchise turning it into one of the many simplicistic RTS titles out there ...

So your comments Does not have any value and shouldn't be even considered simply because is the typical comment of who wants another game than a total war one and so hopes and asks for constant simplifications and dumbing down reducing the game to the style of RTS ala Age of Empires, ... perhaps that game is better suited for you since the easyness and you just need to mass units and throw them one against each other ...

So you don't like my comment so you start insulting me,
realy adult behaviour


Just one thing to think about
Resources are limited.
CA can use their resources not for all whishes, ideas of the community
I think your wishes are not good, don't make the game better, and if CA would start to work on your ideas
they wouldn't be able to implement other stuff that I and others would maybe like to see in the game.

My opinion if you think thats insulting you should think again about it because you will meet Online and in RL
every day people with other ideas, worldviews if you always start to insult them, if you don't like their opinion
you will become a lonely person.

[PROMETHEUS ts]

Okay, has been already removed in... Attila I think.

Doesn't matter, I played little Attila because was just a rehash of RomeII with horde mechanic, so this granted it two points more.

Yes for me I can't talk for others and the same for you, you can only speak for yourself that you think it is intresting and fun and like there are other people who think like you there are other people that think like me and are not intrested or don't have fun playing multiplayer.I dislike it.

So you see I can say I dislike it.

No I have collected all the feelings of the people I play online with and they all agree, you must be one of the few that disagree , if you even play MP battles. If you don't then you are not evenentitled to have an opinion on that.

It depends,
because the Team that is programming the Mulitplayer feature needs to be paid,
if that removes company resources from other areas/Teams maybe things I'm intrested in can't be implemented
so it would have a negative impact on me.

You do not work for CA , you do not know whats their budget and that feature was already implemented and developed for Shogun II , so it can be reimplemented.

Can you have a discussion without insulting other people?
I have played battles on maps with hills, forests, swamps etc. so for my taste the variety is similar to previous TW titles.

I have not insulted, the only one that did here its you when you said CA shoul dnot waste its time reading , wich is actually what should do with your post , there is a big difference from my contribution and yours, I have proposed facts and ideas, you did not.

Again your opinion.
I got antoher, I like the graphics it fits perfect to the WH Universe.
ShougunII was fun but Shogun needs to be Compared to Empire or Napoleon where you only sieged Forts and not Cities
In WH you are sieging Cities so you need to campare it to Rome, Rome 2, Attila, Medieval and best sieges had been in Attial, WH is in my opinion second, worst and most redicolous sieges had Rome 1
.

No its not an opinion is a fact , I work with graphics and I know the subject, the sieges are dumbed down and this needs to be fixed, there is not much to express here, because castle maps or city maps are the same size regardless of the title , at least Rome II had outposts even if without walls . If you want to see a proper castle then you can take a look at my mods on steam for Shogun II .

No you are wrong..

I am not starting the kiddy joke on who is wrong . thats childish and I already told you why you are wrong.

Why should the population of an Empire region accept that they are exchanged for another region and will become part of the Undead Empire...sure realy realisitc.
Or Dwarfs will start to trade and exchange prisoners and technology with the orks, fits perfect into the WH Univers...
well No it doesn't.
No

If you played the game a little you woulnd know that this wouln't happen and if you are serious about arguing and discussing you would propose alternatives and solutions not write out plain wrong affirmations out of perhaps having played too little the game?
The Humans and Undead cannot trade , wich is fine , but Dwarves , with Dwarves could trade and it makes perfect sense to exchange a mine to complete a province or else .


No seabattles are not in the game, or are seamaps, ships etc. available in the game for the realtime battles?
But if they would already be included
whats the reason for building a Navy on the Old World Map?
How often would seabattles happen?
You can cross most sea areas in one or two turns, it is realy bad planning if a enemy Navy would be close enough to intercept your transport ships.
orks and dwarfs can use to underground tunnels to cross the water areas between the southern wastes and the Bordprince Regions.I'm sure Sea Battles will be added in the 2nd game when Atlantis err Uluthan Map (High Elf Home Island) will be add
for the Old World Map of WH, seabattles are not intresting because there is almost no sea you need to cross.
[/QUOTE]

Again seems you did not play the game or not even reached the sea regions , where yuo can actually embark the army and even fight sea battles, wich are just autosolved.
Though I can give you a point on that as the Seabattles are not that relevant on that kind of map , yet, it would b

So you don't like my comment so you start insulting me,
realy adult behaviour

No thats what you did , read above and take credits for urself.

Just one thing to think about
Resources are limited.
CA can use their resources not for all whishes, ideas of the community
I think your wishes are not good, don't make the game better, and if CA would start to work on your ideas
they wouldn't be able to implement other stuff that I and others would maybe like to see in the game.

Again you do not work for CA , you do not manage their businness model neither their income , so you cannot express an opinion on "limited" resources.
They actually have asubforum entitled sugestions and feedback on their main forum , if they did not have resources, they woulnt have made such a forum and they could just limit to what they want to do , but actually having that forum means that they want to hear ideas , sugestions and opinions from thepeople playing their games, that is called feedback , and when you provide also some ideas and sugestions its called constructive criticism .

Saying no , saying Ca shouln't invest time, resource or else , simply because you do not like playing online or want a RTS dumbed down age of empire style game is not a positive constructive criticism , but is actually destructive and damaging.

My opinion if you think thats insulting you should think again about it because you will meet Online and in RL
every day people with other ideas, worldviews if you always start to insult them, if you don't like their opinion
you will become a lonely person.

Very nice, this is just what you should do before entering threads and start insulting people , a reminder for you to stick in front of your screen and keyboard for next time .

3 make better graphics and more interesting landscapes that are somewhat subpar if compared to previous titles ( a good example here are Arena maps

I don't understand this comment. Most of the maps in Warhammer seem to be full of undulating landscapes with rises and dips to take advantage of.

I refer to the fact that they have reduced features on ground, , the maps always , or most of the time end up beeing flat or semiflat maps, if you take a look on how interesting are the arena maps you can get an idea.
I am referring mostly to the campaign maps though , not the multiplayer maps that are better ... yet they could use a much more detailed work .

Also many of them have problems on textures like the striking whiteish texture of snow that doesn't seems even snow, or the quality of the textures, looks like they got a step back from previous titles in quality of environment.

I agree on the multiplayer. Wathammer have a lot of potential in multi above the regular pitched battles. Especially free for all should be a thing.

Exactly , there is lot of potential in this game and this is why I have posted a constructive feedback , I am liking the game , but it could be so much better if they only added a few features, it could actually reach the top level and may be even get 11/10 for the coolness factor merged with the gameplay factor.

Merged three consecutive posts - please make use of the edit\multi quote function to avoid penalties.

[Markas]

Sea battles would be utterly pointless and a huge waste of resources in this game, but I'd definitely like them in the future provided they can make them work for once (I note you did say eventually). I'm not sure why you've given Shogun 2 a high mark (which is fine) but then stated that Warhammer is really dumbed down. S2 succeeded because it stripped back features like having homogenous unit rosters and Spiderman infantry in sieges. CA fail when they bite off more than they can chew, so adding more complexity isn't worth it in this game. Save any big changes for the later ones so they have a decent base to work off.

[PROMETHEUS ts]

Sea battles would be utterly pointless and a huge waste of resources in this game, but I'd definitely like them in the future provided they can make them work for once (I note you did say eventually). I'm not sure why you've given Shogun 2 a high mark (which is fine) but then stated that Warhammer is really dumbed down. S2 succeeded because it stripped back features like having homogenous unit rosters and Spiderman infantry in sieges. CA fail when they bite off more than they can chew, so adding more complexity isn't worth it in this game. Save any big changes for the later ones so they have a decent base to work off.

Ah spiderman infantry , well historically the walls of japanese castles could be climbed, so its not an off feature.
Apart that the land battles have a lot of features less as I said like army formations , unit formations , unit features, some example are loda reload, sit , dismount, loose formation , shieldwall and so on ... sure they added enchantments, magic and its good they did , but they should bring back also the classing tw features of units.
I am willing to pay even double the game value if they added those features.

[Markas]

Ah spiderman infantry , well historically the walls of japanese castles could be climbed, so its not an off feature.

Well any wall can be climbed with enough skill and patience, but historically it was not that well attested to as far as I know. Most representations of Japanese sieges show Ladders rather than scaling. That and waiting it out. Still looked daft though, even in light of magic ladders. As for Warhammer sieges, I'm glad they are less prevalent than in previous games and I'm okay with the single wall element but they need to be sexed up and made more formidable. Currently they are more an obstacle than a true fortification. Where's the boiling oil/sand/water?

Apart that the land battles have a lot of features less as I said like army formations , unit formations , unit features, some example are loda reload, sit , dismount, loose formation , shieldwall and so on ... sure they added enchantments, magic and its good they did , but they should bring back also the classing tw features of units.

I think it was a response to the slew of abilities that units in Rome 2 had, which meant unnecessary micromanagement for no real gain, that they stripped those out. I'd like unique racial abilities like perhaps 'Dwarfen Shieldwall', as it fits their style and will make them less squishy in combat, or a charge ability for Orcs. As long as it doesn't go into Rome 2 territory. Loose formation would be good as well.

I am willing to pay even double the game value if they added those features.

Let's not give them ideas!

[M2TWRocks]

Shogun I 10/10 ( it was the first )
Medieval 9/10
Rome I 9/10 ( it was the beginning of a new age )
Medieval II 7/10
Empire 6/10 ( Introduced sea battles )
Napoleon 5/10
Rome II has 2/10 ( really bad historical design , no proper testudo formation, bad AI , unfullfilled promises , no city walls and so on)
Attila 4/10 ( new horde system is good but the rest is similar to Rome II )

I was in total agreement about your rating scale, until I got to Napoleon and especially Attila. (Very few people have actually played the original Medieval Total War - That game will likely always be my favorite.)

Warhammer isn't a perfect game, but it's perfect at what it attempts to be. Do I wish it was grittier and more resembled a hybrid of the beautiful aesthetic design and character of Warhammer mashed together with more realistic battle and grand strategic mechanics? Sure. It's just not that. It is however very fun and it's the first time I've stuck out a long campaign victory in a very long time. (And with three factions, no less.)

I wish there were more factions right from the start. I wish they didn't release pieces and parts of the grand campaign here and there over time. I wish there was a bit more to do other than wait for the blatantly obvious scripted events in the game. (Some random chance of when, where, and how extensive these events were would be an improvement by itself.) But it is what it is. Cut off some heads, ride a flying mount into battle for the first time, and shoot a fireball out of your fist. It's a fun excursion while it lasts.

[Humble Warrior]

Warhammer Analysis


Actual Score : 7.5


At the moment Warhammer is a very dumbed down version of what should be a TW game, the last games produced are really bad , historically , graphically but most of all on gameplay aspect!

Shogun II instead is the best achievement so far and I have no clue why CA decided to remove all the good gameplay mechanics they had introduced in that game for making a dumbed down version.
I especially praise the Multiplayer roleplay career mode of STW II .

In comparison Warhammer MP is bland , simplicistic and at traits flat !


Yet the game is cool for the look and the fun watching strange and unconventional units clash on each other.
There are some flaws in units though.
Some Units are looking good, some great and some are terrible, there is a little incoherence in graphic constistence, looks like different artists worked on different units and were not coordinated well to preserve a good quality level between them.
So different styles that do not preserve the coherence in the graphics uniformity.
The best looking units end up beeing the leaders, while the cannonfodder units, wich are the ones you see the most are instead less flashed out and detailed.

There are a lot of graphical glithces and imprecisions also on the battlemaps like floating stones, unintruded mesh cliffs, poor pathways and rather boring landscape with few items or buildings or other interest points that instead other games had like Shogun for example.

Do not get me wrong though, I am surely enjoying the game, but just because its a Warhammer setting with strange units, if this game was done with the same care it was done Shogun II, especially in MP and the gameplay of battles was not dumbed down removing formation buttons and types, the unit features like for one open or closed formation , a shield formation , pike formations and so on , stuff that would make the units more interesting to use and not just some stuff to pick and throw into battle ... this would have been a masterpiece, unfortunately the gameplay decisions taken at high level proved to be wrong and do not rise much entusiasm in playing battles or online matches because of the flattness of the commands and the few options offered compared to past titles so the fun relies only into watching monsters and weird units fight.
The positive aspects of the game are instead the campaign quest system, the variety of factions , events ingame and other things that keep things different and fresh just changing faction ...
I am really disappointed by the dumbed down features of the combat system but the campaign is better than others so far.

Here is my Rate list for the games released so far:
Shogun II has actually 9/10 , but it could be better still .


In comparison

Shogun I 10/10 ( it was the first )
Medieval 9/10
Rome I 9/10 ( it was the beginning of a new age )
Medieval II 7/10
Empire 6/10 ( Introduced sea battles )
Napoleon 5/10
Rome II has 2/10 ( really bad historical design , no proper testudo formation, bad AI , unfullfilled promises , no city walls and so on)
Attila 4/10 ( new horde system is good but the rest is similar to Rome II )

So warhammer gets a 7.5/10

I add a 1/2 point to the original 7 and Warhammer gets an 7.5 because of the variety of the campaign.

But Remember that the features of the battles is the main feature of Total war and dumbing down is the worst decision ever taken .
So I suggest CA to reimplement all those stripped features that were present in Shogun II.

So far Shogun II is above because it has an Unique and Awesome Multiplayer career system that kept people busy for ages and was really enjoyable
Plus it has a very good feature system in the battle modes.
Sure it lacks the diversity in the campaign aspect but thats the nature of playing in a setting where all factions are the same, its more balanced and more like a chess game its not a good or bad feature.


Warhammer could get a 10/10 if :


1 Reimplement the features stripped from the battle modes that were present in earlier titles
2 Implement the Multiplayer game system with career, formations of army and a whole roleplay thing like it was in Shogun II
3 make better graphics and more interesting landscapes that are somewhat subpar if compared to previous titles ( a good example here are Arena maps)
4 Add back the real castle system with proper sieges in battle modes and not just plain flat maps or one single side castle wall.
5 Better diplomacy with more options , like exchange territory , lend units, offer prisoners as ransom and so on.
6 Eventually Sea battles.



If you do that Warhammer will rise to the top ten with a 10/10 ....

Since it has many DLCs planned I hope CA will focus on them adding those gameplay features that are really needed and will add a lot to the game.

Finally as bonus if you create a tool to import export models and allow to make custom battlemaps to be used ingame it will get 10/10 with laude !

Thanks for the review. Your comparison levels are a good barometer that enables me to know this game is no good for me (maybe when it`s free or £5). Seems like a TW-lite while they throw everything else that made TW out with the bathwater. The game was never designed to cater to the veteran TW gamers (or those who liked the older TW games) in any way at all. It`s a raspberry to the old generation. Oh and sieges, from my research are pug-awful.

They could have done a great fantasy game, while keeping all the extra tactical elements of the old ones. The old is not always bad just as the new is not always good.
Looks like this seriously not worth getting.

[Markas]

The game was never designed to cater to the veteran TW gamers (or those who liked the older TW games)

Yeah we all know how universally great the old games were. Could I borrow your rose-tinted spectacles some time? I have a feeling I could identify individual sunspots with them.

[Twido]

Really good thought provoking OP, here is my take on it.

First of all we will all have different idea for the scores of the previous titles. I started with the first MTW but my favourite of the franchise was MTW2. I also really liked Empire but it was unfortunately plagued my bugs and features that didn't seem fully finished. The rot for me set in with Shogun 2, although this wasn't so bad it marked the start of arcade like battles relying more on micro skills rather than strategy. This has just got worse over the remaining titles to the point that I feel like I am not using a proper strategy to win but rather bum rushing and exploiting gamey mechanics

So what would it take to make Warhammer better?

1) I don't think anyone can seriously disagree with you about the dumbed down mechanics, this is especially the case in siege battles that are now just awful in comparison to MTW2 (rose tinted glasses not required). It is disappointing to see this get successively worse when one would expect features to improve over time. I can only assume that it is down to one or more of the following: time, money or talent.

2) Have an option to choose between arcadey or realistic battles. This would keep us grumpy older players happy while giving the younger players the opportunity to see why we are right when we say that it was better in our day. Joking aside, it doesn't hurt to provide options and I really doubt that this feature would take much development time at all. The argument that it fantasy and so does not need to be realistic is asinine; everything is based on a realistic expectation. One can imagine what a goblin riding on a spider could realistically or what a dragon is capable of. I also think that it is not acceptable to just say that this is what mods are for, the developer should be making the best product that they can.

3) Railroaded campaigns. This isn't quite as bad as I thought it would be, but then I thought it would be pretty damn terrible. As the game world increases in size though I think that this will feel even worse.

4) I think they could have done a little bit more with the rich lore of the game world. There is scope for loads of stuff in the lore and it is just not available to us.

To give credit where it is due, the diplomacy is much better in more recent titles. This feature never really worked properly in the earlier TW games and it is good to see it improving over time.

[Derpy Hooves]

If you think sieges are better in Medieval II, you are wearing rose-tinted glasses. It is almost impossible for the AI to take citadels, and it is hard for them to defend them as well.

[Påsan]

Id say Med 2 sieges feels better but from a gameplay perspective were much worse.

[Death_Sheep]

Give me political options like Hearts of Iron.

Allow me to send expeditionary forces to my allies.

Let me send my heroes to help and boost my allies. Let my heroes adventure.

Bring back seasons. Let the game take place over the course of 10 years.

More random events.

[Chlodwig I.]

Doesn't matter, I played little Attila because was just a rehash of RomeII with horde mechanic, so this granted it two points more.

CA needs to be honoured that you granted 2 additional brownie points.

No I have collected all the feelings of the people I play online with and they all agree, you must be one of the few that disagree , if you even play MP battles. If you don't then you are not evenentitled to have an opinion on that.

Maybe in North Korea, in the western world everyone is allowed to have an opinion and speak it open and free, its not your decision who has the right to speak.

You do not work for CA , you do not know whats their budget and that feature was already implemented and developed for Shogun II , so it can be reimplemented.

Yes I do not work for CA but from what I work and my Knowledge I think I can make the assumptions I did.

I have not insulted, the only one that did here its you when you said CA shoul dnot waste its time reading , wich is actually what should do with your post , there is a big difference from my contribution and yours, I have proposed facts and ideas, you did not.

Ok I'm really just one inch away from stoping giving a reply to your ideas/opinion and realy starting to insult you.
You made personal attacks/insults by questioning my taste and my right to give my opinion
I only critisized your ideas.

So who started the insulting?

No its not an opinion is a fact , I work with graphics and I know the subject, the sieges are dumbed down and this needs to be fixed, there is not much to express here, because castle maps or city maps are the same size regardless of the title , at least Rome II had outposts even if without walls . If you want to see a proper castle then you can take a look at my mods on steam for Shogun II .

I don't care for your mods, and i don't care if the seize of the maps is identical or not.
I just wanted to make clear that there is a diffrence between a castle and a city.

just go to a castle in rl than go to a old city in rl
or go into a library and have a look on maps of historical cities and castles you will see the diffrence.

I am not starting the kiddy joke on who is wrong . thats childish and I already told you why you are wrong.

And again, you are right I'am wrong no need for discussion.
You give the impression that you are not intrested in other persons views and that have to be wrong if they are not in line with yours.

If you played the game a little you woulnd know that this wouln't happen and if you are serious about arguing and discussing you would propose alternatives and solutions not write out plain wrong affirmations out of perhaps having played too little the game?

Again you Insult me in questioning my gaming expierence.

Why does it matter how often I play TW or other games, or If I moded TW games to have a opinion about diplomacy?

The Humans and Undead cannot trade , wich is fine

Oh you noticed that this is now a reduction of your first statement where you said the diplomacy is in total has not enough options.
,

but Dwarves , with Dwarves could trade and it makes perfect sense to exchange a mine to complete a province or else .

[/quote]
Your point of view is that from a player who knows about the game mechanics and the bonuses.
Which is in terms of game mechanis is a good idea because there is no tradeoff you just buy/exchange a territory and you get the bonuses and you don't have
to start a war against e.g. an allied faction... but that game is total war not total blackmail.

And still think, that considering immersion etc. that this option isn't realistic.
Dwarfs who have this book of grudges, for paying back every insult or unfair treatment... exchanging territory no way.


Again I asked you for giving me one real world exmaple where something like that happend without causing civil unrest.
I don't know one but I can change my opinion if you can give me one.
But I can give you also one in favor for my opinion
When Germany was united in the 1990s Russia offered them to get Kaliningrad back, which was for hundred of years German territiory
but Germany declined because no Germans where living in Kaliningrad anymore.
Even if it would have increase German territory, and would have given big ecomomic options, like improving trade with baltic countries and Russia






,

Again seems you did not play the game or not even reached the sea regions , where yuo can actually embark the army and even fight sea battles, wich are just autosolved.
Though I can give you a point on that as the Seabattles are not that relevant on that kind of map , yet, it would b

Again a personal insult, instead of contering my position.

Again you do not work for CA , you do not manage their businness model neither their income , so you cannot express an opinion on "limited" resources.
They actually have asubforum entitled sugestions and feedback on their main forum , if they did not have resources, they woulnt have made such a forum and they could just limit to what they want to do , but actually having that forum means that they want to hear ideas , sugestions and opinions from thepeople playing their games, that is called feedback , and when you provide also some ideas and sugestions its called constructive criticism .

Again I know enough about business, to make assumptions about limited ressources and the impact that it could have.
Just having a feedback area in their offical forum doesn't give them the programmers/IT-guys (ressources) to develop or implement all these ideas.

And like you make assumptions about what other people like, think about the game based on your limited information you get from exchange with some other players.
If you got the right to do so you need to grant that right also to other players
if you criticise something you have to except that people will criticise your ideas, and give constructive criticism by pointing on the WH setting of the game and that some of
your ideas don't fit into WH Universe.
you gave your feedback I gave mine as answer to yours.
Maybe I thought your criticism wasn't constructive but destructive by displaying the game worser as it is.
thought about that?

Saying no , saying Ca shouln't invest time, resource or else , simply because you do not like playing online or want a RTS dumbed down age of empire style game is not a positive constructive criticism , but is actually destructive and damaging.

Very nice, this is just what you should do before entering threads and start insulting people , a reminder for you to stick in front of your screen and keyboard for next time .

Again who is insulting who?

I was only questioning/criticising your Ideas not you.
but you started attacking me personally by e.g. questioning my game experience etc.


Question someones ideas/position is criticism not insulting.

Questiong a person directly and not the ideas, that is insulting.

[PROMETHEUS ts]

@Markas

Well any wall can be climbed with enough skill and patience, but historically it was not that well attested to as far as I know. Most representations of Japanese sieges show
Ladders rather than scaling. That and waiting it out. Still looked daft though, even in light of magic ladders. As for Warhammer sieges, I'm glad they are less prevalent than in previous games and I'm okay with the single wall element but they need to be sexed up and made more formidable. Currently they are more an obstacle than a true fortification. Where's the boiling oil/sand/water?

Well I think we are both right on this, they used ladders, but they also climbed, their walls were more thought as an obstacle rather than a defence and Castles were made sorot of like a mountain ... anyway here is a good post and the relative thread about this argument that we don't need to dig further here.
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...=1#post9145937

As for the Warhammer sieges, I am not glad because I am forced or induced to autosolve battles on smaller unwalled settlements while I do play them when I am in main city , this is a too extreme simplification they added in Rome II , one of the many reasons why I so much disliked that title and so harshly contested it even before release.

I will give you a little tip to always win in defence with a Warhammer castle or Always win .... On legendary level...

Attack
When attacking , put all your troops in an angle out of the line of fire of the last tower, then use your or yours cannons ( you will need at least one or two ) and start firing down the towers, then walls and then rush into the main plaza, keeep busy the rest of the troops and you will win .

Defence
Put all your troops on the tower slots directly facing the siege machinery , first destroy those, then move the infantry where they will climb and one or two in front of a door, easy as that ...

You will most of the time win even on legendary ...


So the Sieges now in WArhammer , are impossible to win if you get a decent player on the defence , and viceversa . There is no more strategy but just plain cheating and tricks wich is not good in a strategy game . I hoped that really good castles to siege would have appeared in WTW , but I was really disappointed!

I think it was a response to the slew of abilities that units in Rome 2 had, which meant unnecessary micromanagement for no real gain, that they stripped those out. I'd like unique racial abilities like perhaps 'Dwarfen Shieldwall', as it fits their style and will make them less squishy in combat, or a charge ability for Orcs. As long as it doesn't go into Rome 2 territory. Loose formation would be good as well.

I don't think it is unnecessary micromanagement but it adds depth and tactics to the game, one of the features I liked from some previous titles was even the ability to deploy structures for defence, or have possibility to capture buildings and use them as defence ... put troops inside the walls of a farm and defend from there and so on , all those features have no place in Warhammer, and its just a big blob of units against another big blob, the only strategy available most of the time is surround the enemy .

I must say though that AI performs much better on field than previous titles. Given perhaps the limited variables it has now to work with.

And yeseven racial abilities woudl work , but I would have expected to see some pike formations for Imperial spears, some shield wall or testudo like formations for dwarves, some loose formations or shield wall for orcs cantabrian circle for goblins and so on...

Let's not give them ideas!

Well its just to say that, I am pretty sure if all that requires money people would be willing to offer them if they DID an actual real Total war game and not keep stripping away features.


@M2TWRocks

Shogun I 10/10 ( it was the first )
Medieval 9/10
Rome I 9/10 ( it was the beginning of a new age )
Medieval II 7/10
Empire 6/10 ( Introduced sea battles )
Napoleon 5/10
Rome II has 2/10 ( really bad historical design , no proper testudo formation, bad AI , unfullfilled promises , no city walls and so on)
Attila 4/10 ( new horde system is good but the rest is similar to Rome II )

I was in total agreement about your rating scale, until I got to Napoleon and especially Attila. (Very few people have actually played the original Medieval Total War - That game will likely always be my favorite.)

MEdieval also was cool as for Napoleon I found it boring , and was mostly an expansion on the first , that was more innovative having added sea battles that were really a new revolution in tw games.

Warhammer isn't a perfect game, but it's perfect at what it attempts to be. Do I wish it was grittier and more resembled a hybrid of the beautiful aesthetic design and character of Warhammer mashed together with more realistic battle and grand strategic mechanics? Sure. It's just not that. It is however very fun and it's the first time I've stuck out a long campaign victory in a very long time. (And with three factions, no less.)

I wish there were more factions right from the start. I wish they didn't release pieces and parts of the grand campaign here and there over time. I wish there was a bit more to do other than wait for the blatantly obvious scripted events in the game. (Some random chance of when, where, and how extensive these events were would be an improvement by itself.) But it is what it is. Cut off some heads, ride a flying mount into battle for the first time, and shoot a fireball out of your fist. It's a fun excursion while it lasts.

[/QUOTE]

Warhammer is not perfect and yes it does perfect to appeal the casual player and the random kid wishing to just furiously click on mouse to send his giants to smash the small humans .... The game is fun yes, but for me it leaves a huge bitter taste as it feels like another missed opportunity for CA , and a sort of slap in the face of all the total war fans and followers that for years have played their games. I personally play TW since STW I and I have seen the evolution taken in the latest years has gone more and more toward arcade solutions ... The first games were thought with strategy in mind, with history and tactics, while the latest slowly shifted into fantasy realms , rule of cool and casual RTS game.


@Twido

Really good thought provoking OP, here is my take on it.

First of all we will all have different idea for the scores of the previous titles. I started with the first MTW but my favourite of the franchise was MTW2. I also really liked Empire but it was unfortunately plagued my bugs and features that didn't seem fully finished. The rot for me set in with Shogun 2, although this wasn't so bad it marked the start of arcade like battles relying more on micro skills rather than strategy. This has just got worse over the remaining titles to the point that I feel like I am not using a proper strategy to win but rather bum rushing and exploiting gamey mechanics

I liked it too , but as you said had lots of bugs etc.

2) Have an option to choose between arcadey or realistic battles. This would keep us grumpy older players happy while giving the younger players the opportunity to see why we are right when we say that it was better in our day. Joking aside, it doesn't hurt to provide options and I really doubt that this feature would take much development time at all. The argument that it fantasy and so does not need to be realistic is asinine; everything is based on a realistic expectation. One can imagine what a goblin riding on a spider could realistically or what a dragon is capable of. I also think that it is not acceptable to just say that this is what mods are for, the developer should be making the best product that they can.

I agree , but an option ? Dunno seems unnecessary to me.

3) Railroaded campaigns. This isn't quite as bad as I thought it would be, but then I thought it would be pretty damn terrible. As the game world increases in size though I think that this will feel even worse.

I think is one of the few times I was induced to play more than a few factions to play the campaign and railroaded or not I did most of the time as I pleased as the rails are just for following the quests, I have not much to say on the campaigns apart that I would prefer more diplomatic options and better regional management that doesn't turn local settlements into just plain flat map battles.

4) I think they could have done a little bit more with the rich lore of the game world. There is scope for loads of stuff in the lore and it is just not available to us.
To give credit where it is due, the diplomacy is much better in more recent titles. This feature never really worked properly in the earlier TW games and it is good to see it improving over time.

I have not much to say on loe as I do not know it at all , its fun to discover even by the little bits of informations picked from the quests .



@Humble Warrior

Thanks for the review. Your comparison levels are a good barometer that enables me to know this game is no good for me (maybe when it`s free or £5). Seems like a TW-lite while they throw everything else that made TW out with the bathwater. The game was never designed to cater to the veteran TW gamers (or those who liked the older TW games) in any way at all. It`s a raspberry to the old generation. Oh and sieges, from my research are pug-awful.

They could have done a great fantasy game, while keeping all the extra tactical elements of the old ones. The old is not always bad just as the new is not always good.
Looks like this seriously not worth getting.

I think this game is a must have actually , I gived a 7.5 score that is all but a bad vote , there are lots of flaws , but yet the game is fun to play just like a kid having fun smashing troops with giant's big clubs .

Yes it can be made better, it could be the real ultimate CA masterpiece if they did not dumb down the tactical aspect and decided to take an arcadey route to please the younger public , they forget though that who puts the money in are still adults and not childs ...


@Death_Sheep

Give me political options like Hearts of Iron.

Allow me to send expeditionary forces to my allies.

Let me send my heroes to help and boost my allies. Let my heroes adventure.

Bring back seasons. Let the game take place over the course of 10 years.

More random events.

I would actually go for diplomatic options like Europa universalis IV with all expansions ...

I like the idea of having semirpg quests for heroes actually .... like send one of your knights to rescue the princess from an evil Dragon you know ...

Ah YES .... I forgot Seasons... How disapointed I was when I saw there is only one fixed season in multiplayer battles or on the map mode !!!!


@ Chlodwig I.
Sorry not getting into those childish debates, I stopped reading ur thread contributions as I am not interested in arguing and flaming in which you seem more interested. Enjoy Age of empires, perhaps a true total war game is not for you.